PDA

View Full Version : UN Diplomats: Enriched uranium found in Iran


Loki
05-13-2006, 01:27 AM
Diplomats: Enriched uranium found in Iran (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/12/un.iran.ap/index.html)

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.

Still, they said, further analysis could show that the traces match others established to have come from abroad. The International Atomic Energy Agency determined earlier traces of weapons-grade uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that Iran bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity discovered just over three years ago.

Uranium enriched to between 3.5 percent and 5 percent is used to make fuel for reactors to generate electricity. It becomes suitable for use in nuclear weapons when enriched to more than 90 percent.

Iran's refusal to give up enrichment ambitions has led to involvement by the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions but remains split on how firmly to pressure Tehran.

Key U.N. Security Council members agreed Tuesday to postpone a resolution that would have delivered an ultimatum to Tehran, giving Iran another two weeks to re-evaluate its insistence on developing its uranium enrichment capabilities.

Iran's hard-line president said Friday that his country was not afraid of possible U.S. military action over its enrichment program, but added that he thought any such strikes were very unlikely. Washington has said it favors a diplomatic end to the dispute, but it hasn't ruled out military force.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also told a local TV station that Iran would cooperate with the Security Council if it makes a decision on the escalating standoff as long as the world body acts "in line with international rules."

The Islamic republic denies accusations it wants to make nuclear arms and says it is only interested in uranium to generate power.

To argue that it never enriched uranium domestically to weapons grade, it cites the IAEA's tentative conclusion last year that weapons-grade traces collected from other sites within the country with no suspected ties to that military came in on equipment from Pakistan.

The origin of the samples now under perusal created some concern in that regard.

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that the samples came from equipment that can be used in uranium-enriching centrifuges at a former research center at Lavizan-Shian.

The center is believed to have been the repository of equipment bought by the Iranian military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.
The United States alleges Iran had conducted high-explosive tests that could have a bearing on developing nuclear weapons at the site.

The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil had been removed in attempts to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The agency subsequently confirmed that the site had been razed.

In an April 28 report to the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency took samples from some of the equipment of the former Physics Research Center at Lavizan-Shian. The diplomat said the evaluation of those samples revealed the traces in question.

Ahmadinejad's remarks on possible U.S. military action were made in Jakarta during a discussion with Indonesian Islamic leaders.

Asked whether his country was prepared to face an attack by the United States, he said "that is very unlikely because they know the Islamic Republic of Iran is a strong country."

"They are trying to frighten our country by waging a propaganda campaign using strong words. The people of Iran and the country are not afraid of them," he said to applause from the audience.

The Chinese and Russians have balked at British, French and U.S. efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter.

Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment operations. Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.

Loki
05-13-2006, 01:34 AM
ok...

so where did they get the p2 centrifuges? n.korea, china or russia?
(probably russia... they were already involved in the UN-oil for food scandal, why stop there?)

and lemme guess...

china and russia are balking on this UN resolution crap because they're getting cheap-assed oil from iran (in exchange for delay time to work on their bomb) when the rest of the world is having their nuts crushed by opec.

nice.

Ugly Duck
05-13-2006, 02:15 AM
The neocon regime says that Iran is building a bomb, so the opposite is probably true. Chances aren't too good that the neocons would all of a sudden start telling the truth. They've fed us such a steady stream of lies that not too many listen any more when they beat their war drums.

Loki
05-13-2006, 02:20 AM
The neocon regime says that Iran is building a bomb, so the opposite is probably true. Chances aren't too good that the neocons would all of a sudden start telling the truth. They've fed us such a steady stream of lies that not too many listen any more when they beat their war drums.

so... the the UN's IAEA is part of the "neocon regime" now UD?

cool! :thumb:

Ugly Duck
05-13-2006, 02:23 AM
so... the the UN's IAEA is part of the "neocon regime" now UD?

cool! :thumb:No, no.... "UN" stands for "United Nations." My point was that if the Bushron admin sez Iran is building nukes, then Iran is probably not building nukes.

Loki
05-13-2006, 02:42 AM
No, no.... "UN" stands for "United Nations." My point was that if the Bushron admin sez Iran is building nukes, then Iran is probably not building nukes.

lol @ bushron


the problem with your bushron theory is that it is the UN IEAE that is saying that they have/had found samples of enriched uranium, in iran, that were as good if not better than weapons grade... not neobushronicon.
if the iranians were only enriching uranium for fuel/energy purposes, there would be absolutely NO NEED to have weapons grade uranium in any quantity or capacity.
this also raised THEIR (meaning UN IEAE) collective concerns over iran's intentions. there is a HUGE difference between 3.5% enrichment and 90% enrichment.

look, you should know by now that i think the UN is a friggin JOKE. however, when pussy-a$$ed france is on board, UN inspection teams actually FIND something (for a change) and are willing to talk about it BEFORE making an "official take 3 years to get something accomplished statement" and russian and china are delaying/bowing out... you just gotta KNOW something f*cked up is going down in iran.

CHIEF4EVER
05-13-2006, 06:36 AM
Wait, wait , wait.......you mean the administration was RIGHT? Say it isn't so.........ROFL

Ugly Duck
05-13-2006, 10:01 AM
look, you should know by now that i think the UN is a friggin JOKE. however, when pussy-a$$ed france is on board, UN inspection teams actually FIND something (for a change) and are willing to talk about it BEFORE making an "official take 3 years to get something accomplished statement" and russian and china are delaying/bowing out... you just gotta KNOW something f*cked up is going down in iran.I'll believe that Iran has nukes when my government says that they don't.

banyon
05-13-2006, 10:17 AM
I think that they probably do have a nukes program in Iran.

But, unfortunately, due to this administration's penchant for perpetual deception, misinformation, propaganda, and secrecy no one will have any reason to believe that they are doing anything but "crying wolf" again.

Lzen
05-13-2006, 10:32 AM
I watched a program on the History Channel the other night. It was called "Iran The Next Iraq?". You all should check it out if it comes on again. Very eye opening. Very scary stuff.

the Talking Can
05-13-2006, 02:57 PM
so many remakes these days...where are the good movies?

BucEyedPea
05-13-2006, 03:30 PM
I think we're just gonna have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
Nuking them would be far more destabilizing.

Adept Havelock
05-13-2006, 03:35 PM
I think we're just gonna have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
Nuking them would be far more destabilizing.

Careful there, as I've cautioned others, advocating the effectiveness of MAD (as I have) will lead some here to brand you as being one step removed from Neville Chamberlain. ;)

WoodDraw
05-13-2006, 04:23 PM
There's a good chance that the tests will come back and show that the traces came from outside Iran. This isn't the first time this has happened.

Dave Lane
05-13-2006, 05:40 PM
A nuclear Iran is not the end of the world. Countries with nukes don't concern me much. Nutjob individuals do.

Dave

Loki
05-13-2006, 07:51 PM
A nuclear Iran is not the end of the world. Countries with nukes don't concern me much. Nutjob individuals do.

Dave
dave,

would you consider Ahmadinejad to be a nutjob?

Adept Havelock
05-13-2006, 08:00 PM
would you consider Ahmadinejad to be a nutjob?

I most certainly would. I would also consider Stalin, Andropov, and Mao nutjobs.

The world has surivived all three thanks to MAD.

WoodDraw
05-13-2006, 09:15 PM
I most certainly would. I would also consider Stalin, Andropov, and Mao nutjobs.

The world has surivived all three thanks to MAD.

You are dealing with MAD on a fairly elemental level. It "worked" between the US and USSR, but even then I'm not sure I'd used the word worked. The theory depends on a whole set of assumptions, the most important in the Iranian case being that a clear chain of command exists where the only people capable of authorizing a nuclear attack never would. That's clearly not the case in the Iran where there are well-connected terrorist organizations, corruption, and insane leaders. Even with the Soviet Union, a world power, people worried about black market sales and rogue military leaders.

And the logic behind MAD has never involved allowed all countries to develop nuclear weapons because they will never use them. The more countries the have nuclear weapons, the less relavent MAD becomes.

penchief
05-13-2006, 09:39 PM
What I find hard to accept is the fact that Bush's "Axis of Evil" seems to be a self-fullfilling prophecy (by the way, does anyone else get an uncomfortable feeling about how the Rovemachine took the word Axis from WWII?). How coincidental would it have to be for those three countries to simultaneously become nuclear threats to America shortly after that speech? Let's all use our own minds for the sake of this exercise.

Now, consider the state of the world. Then, consider the state of our nation. After that, consider your own sense of comfort about the first two. Lastly, consider how much better everything was before Cheneyburton had it's Energy Task Force Meetings. Think about how far fewer peoples in the world prayed for our demise.

Think about how we used to be a guiding light for the world's hope. Now, it seems like we are viewed by other countries more like the way we use to view the Soviet Union.

Wake up, people!!!!

Adept Havelock
05-13-2006, 09:43 PM
You are dealing with MAD on a fairly elemental level. It "worked" between the US and USSR, but even then I'm not sure I'd used the word worked. The theory depends on a whole set of assumptions, the most important in the Iranian case being that a clear chain of command exists where the only people capable of authorizing a nuclear attack never would. That's clearly not the case in the Iran where there are well-connected terrorist organizations, corruption, and insane leaders. Even with the Soviet Union, a world power, people worried about black market sales and rogue military leaders.

And the logic behind MAD has never involved allowed all countries to develop nuclear weapons because they will never use them. The more countries the have nuclear weapons, the less relavent MAD becomes.IMO, MAD depends upon one fact. Ahmadinejad is certain that (provided he develops them) if any Iranian Nuclear Weapon is ever used against the US or it's interests it will be traceable to his reactors. At that point, the nation of Iran will cease to exist. Rather difficult to lead the Caliphite into a new age when it's leading nation is but a plain of irradiated glass.

Is the spread of nuclear weapons a cause for concern? Yes. Is Iran obtaining the bomb the end of the world? No. People claimed the same thing when the Soviets detonated their first device in '49, and the Chinese in '59, IIRC.

As for the idea of MAD not working between nuclear powers like the US and USSR, it most certainly did, and does. If it had not, we would not be here to have this discussion.

MAD has a tenuous connection to nuclear prolifieration. Granted, a bipolar world is more "orderly" and predictable. However, the basic tenets of MAD are equally effective when dealing with a multi-polar world. Is Iran obtaining the Bomb cause for grave concern? Of course. However, living with a Nuclearized Iran via MAD is still vastly prefereable to the Pandora's box that would open if we were to assault that nation, thereby causing it's people to rally around Ahmadinejad and his nutjob ideals.

I deal with MAD on an "elemental" level, because it is a very simple principle. Bipolar or Multipolar, it is still fundamentally the logic of pointing a gun at your opponents head, because he has one pointed at yours. Is it preferable to keep that opponent from obtaining that gun? Sometimes. Would the US or the world have been better off had we carried out Operation "Downfall" (The earliest incarnation of the SIOP) in 1949? Or if we had attacked China in 1959? I for one, seriously doubt it.

Loki
05-13-2006, 09:45 PM
I most certainly would. I would also consider Stalin, Andropov, and Mao nutjobs.

The world has surivived all three thanks to MAD.

you forgot hitler and pol pot...

Adept Havelock
05-13-2006, 09:49 PM
you forgot hitler and pol pot...Hitler did have access to advanced Chemical WMD's (for his era). He refrained from using them (largely due to his own experience being gassed, IMO) because of the threat of retaliation, or MAD. I left him out because he never developed a nuclear capability (thanks to Heisenberg's poor planning at Heidelburg. Really, what kind of idiot designs a nuclear pile without a moderating function?).

Your inclusion of Pol Pot confuses me, as he was never able to extend his power (all-pervasive as it may have been within) outside the borders of the Khmer Republic, nor did he have access to WMD's. :hmmm:

WoodDraw
05-13-2006, 11:54 PM
IMO, MAD depends upon one fact. Ahmadinejad is certain that (provided he develops them) if any Iranian Nuclear Weapon is ever used against the US or it's interests it will be traceable to his reactors. At that point, the nation of Iran will cease to exist. Rather difficult to lead the Caliphite into a new age when it's leading nation is but a plain of irradiated glass.

Is the spread of nuclear weapons a cause for concern? Yes. Is Iran obtaining the bomb the end of the world? No. People claimed the same thing when the Soviets detonated their first device in '49, and the Chinese in '59, IIRC.

As for the idea of MAD not working between nuclear powers like the US and USSR, it most certainly did, and does. If it had not, we would not be here to have this discussion.

MAD has a tenuous connection to nuclear prolifieration. Granted, a bipolar world is more "orderly" and predictable. However, the basic tenets of MAD are equally effective when dealing with a multi-polar world. Is Iran obtaining the Bomb cause for grave concern? Of course. However, living with a Nuclearized Iran via MAD is still vastly prefereable to the Pandora's box that would open if we were to assault that nation, thereby causing it's people to rally around Ahmadinejad and his nutjob ideals.

I deal with MAD on an "elemental" level, because it is a very simple principle. Bipolar or Multipolar, it is still fundamentally the logic of pointing a gun at your opponents head, because he has one pointed at yours. Is it preferable to keep that opponent from obtaining that gun? Sometimes. Would the US or the world have been better off had we carried out Operation "Downfall" (The earliest incarnation of the SIOP) in 1949? Or if we had attacked China in 1959? I for one, seriously doubt it.

Well first, Ahmadinejad is a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime and nothing more. He has about as much power to deploy nuclear weapons as I do. His job is to rally public support and not piss off the actual people in charge.

I agree that MAD worked reasonably well between the Soviet Union and the US, although it did have its moments. And it would probably work between the US and Iran to the extent that Iran's leaders would never authorize a direct nuclear strike. But Iran's political makeup raises a whole new mess of problems. Ties to terrorist organizations, lack of strong military leadership, poverty, black market, and an all around unstable political makeup. One person with connections to the nuclear program who doesn't buy into the MAD philisophy and the whole doctrine is blown to hell.

Remember that Pakistan - the last unstable country to develop nuclear weapons - is now directly responsible for the mess we are in with Iran and NK. And through a rogue scientist no less. Do we really want to just wait and see if that is as bad as it gets?

Adept Havelock
05-14-2006, 12:04 AM
Remember that Pakistan - the last unstable country to develop nuclear weapons - is now directly responsible for the mess we are in with Iran and NK. And through a rogue scientist no less. Do we really want to just wait and see if that is as bad as it gets?

As I said, there is cause for concern. I just don't see a military option at this time. Any attack will only do for the Iranian nutcase's popularity with his people what 9/11 did for Bush's in the US. The people will rally around him, and likely embrace his nutty ideas.

[Obligatory internet disclaimer. While my dislike of Bush is well known, I am in no way comparing the President of Iran with the President of the US. Oy.]

WoodDraw
05-14-2006, 12:06 AM
It also worth noting that Iran, as of right now, neither has nuclear weapons nor the ability to strike the US. Even if they do develop nuclear weapons (which is years off), they still won't have the technology to strike the US. So really, MAD doesn't apply at all. The US would have the ability to take out all of Iran's nuclear capabilities on a first strike and Iran has no second strike capability.

alanm
05-14-2006, 12:07 AM
No, no.... "UN" stands for "United Nations." My point was that if the Bushron admin sez Iran is building nukes, then Iran is probably not building nukes.
You willing to bet your life on that?

CHIEF4EVER
05-14-2006, 12:11 AM
It also worth noting that Iran, as of right now, neither has nuclear weapons nor the ability to strike the US. Even if they do develop nuclear weapons (which is years off), they still won't have the technology to strike the US. So really, MAD doesn't apply at all. The US would have the ability to take out all of Iran's nuclear capabilities on a first strike and Iran has no second strike capability.

If we can't keep illegals from crossing our porous border like nobody's business, what makes you think a terrorist with a suitcase nuke (theoretically from Iran) couldn't cross and make Dallas a friggin crater?

alanm
05-14-2006, 12:13 AM
If we can't keep illegals from crossing our porous border like nobody's business, what makes you think a terrorist with a suitcase nuke (theoretically from Iran) couldn't cross and make Dallas a friggin crater?
Personally I think L.A. would make a better target. :)

Dave Lane
05-14-2006, 12:31 AM
You willing to bet your life on that?


I'm willing to bet yours ROFL

Dave

Adept Havelock
05-14-2006, 12:44 AM
It also worth noting that Iran, as of right now, neither has nuclear weapons nor the ability to strike the US. Even if they do develop nuclear weapons (which is years off), they still won't have the technology to strike the US. So really, MAD doesn't apply at all. The US would have the ability to take out all of Iran's nuclear capabilities on a first strike and Iran has no second strike capability.
IMO, MAD does apply. The primary threat would be to Israel. They have more than enough nukes made at Dimona to obliterate Iran if they are attacked. Besides, as someone else pointed out, an SUV or Truck makes an effective (and cheaper) delivery method than an ICBM.

Unless you are stating that MAD doesn't apply because they (hypothetically) don't have the ability to utterly destroy this country...only parts of it. :hmmm:

WoodDraw
05-14-2006, 12:44 AM
If we can't keep illegals from crossing our porous border like nobody's business, what makes you think a terrorist with a suitcase nuke (theoretically from Iran) couldn't cross and make Dallas a friggin crater?

Sure...that's my argument against allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons.

Loki
05-14-2006, 02:44 AM
Hitler did have access to advanced Chemical WMD's (for his era). He refrained from using them (largely due to his own experience being gassed, IMO) because of the threat of retaliation, or MAD. I left him out because he never developed a nuclear capability (thanks to Heisenberg's poor planning at Heidelburg. Really, what kind of idiot designs a nuclear pile without a moderating function?).

Your inclusion of Pol Pot confuses me, as he was never able to extend his power (all-pervasive as it may have been within) outside the borders of the Khmer Republic, nor did he have access to WMD's. :hmmm:

you mentioned nutjobs, i offered two more.
didn't think they had to be nuclear nutjobs to qualify... :shrug:

Loki
05-14-2006, 02:47 AM
It also worth noting that Iran, as of right now, neither has nuclear weapons nor the ability to strike the US. Even if they do develop nuclear weapons (which is years off), they still won't have the technology to strike the US. So really, MAD doesn't apply at all. The US would have the ability to take out all of Iran's nuclear capabilities on a first strike and Iran has no second strike capability.
why do you think they're years off?

iran has oil and money, but no nukes.
russia and china have nukes, but no oil or money.
just a thought...

Loki
05-14-2006, 02:51 AM
Personally I think L.A. would make a better target. :)

heh...

then hollywood wouldn't be able to make a movie about it.

Loki
05-14-2006, 05:19 AM
...
Besides, as someone else pointed out, an SUV or Truck makes an effective (and cheaper) delivery method than an ICBM.
...


even less expensive...
iran's newest weapons technology.