PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Iran moves closer to nuke warhead capacity


Donger
02-08-2010, 05:11 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear;_ylt=ArAu9cPL2ub91AZtKSyDgLis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNjdWV0NjA0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjA5L2lyYW5f bnVjbGVhcgRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2ly YW5tb3Zlc2Nsbw--

VIENNA – Iran pressed ahead Monday with plans that will increase its ability to make nuclear weapons as it formally informed the U.N. nuclear agency of its intention to enrich uranium to higher levels.

Alarmed world powers questioned the rationale behind the move and warned the country it could face more U.N. sanctions if it made good on its intentions.

Iran maintains its nuclear activities are peaceful, and an envoy insisted the move was meant only to provide fuel for Tehran's research reactor. But world powers fearing that Iran's enrichment program might be a cover for a weapons program were critical.

Britain said the Islamic Republic's reason for further enrichment made no sense because it is not technically advanced enough to turn the resulting material into the fuel rods needed for the reactor.

France and the U.S. said the latest Iranian move left no choice but to push harder for a fourth set of U.N. Security Council sanctions to punish Iran's nuclear defiance.

Even a senior parliamentarian from Russia, which traditionally opposes Western ambitions for new U.N. sanctions, suggested the time had now come for such additional punishment

Konstantin Kosachev, head of the international affairs committee of the State Duma — the lower house of parliament — told the Interfax news agency that the international community should "react to this step with serious measures, including making the regime of economic sanctions more severe."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had already announced Sunday that his country would significantly enrich at least some of the country's stockpile of uranium to 20 percent. Still, Monday's formal notification was significant, particularly because of Iran's waffling in recent months on the issue.

Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to take Iranian low enriched uranium, further enriching it and return it in the form of fuel rods for the reactor — and in broader terms for turning down other overtures meant to diminish concerns about its nuclear agenda.

Telling The Associated Press that his country now had formally told the International Atomic Energy Agency of its intentions, Iranian envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh said that IAEA inspectors now overseeing enrichment to low levels would be able to stay on site to monitor the process.

He suggested world powers had pushed Iran into the decision, asserting that it was their fault that the plan that foresaw Russian and French involvement in supplying fuel from enriched uranium for the Tehran research reactor had failed.

"Until now, we have not received any response to our positive logical and technical proposal," he said. "We cannot leave hospitals and patients desperately waiting for radio isotopes" being produced at the Tehran reactor and used in cancer treatment, he added.

The IAEA confirmed receiving formal notification in a restricted note to the agency's 35-nation board made available to The Associated Press.

Iran's atomic energy organization informed the agency that "production of less than 20 percent enriched uranium is being foreseen," said the note.

"Less than 20 percent" means enrichment to a tiny fraction below that level — in effect 20 percent but formally just below threshold for high enriched uranium.

At the same time, the note indicated that Iran was keeping the agency in the dark about specifics, saying the IAEA "is in the process of seeking clarifications from Iran regarding the starting date of the process for the production of such material and other technical details."

On Sunday, Iranian officials said higher enrichment would start on Tuesday.

At a news conference with French Defense Minister Herve Morin, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised President Barack Obama's attempts to engage the Islamic Republic diplomatically and chided Tehran for not reciprocating.

"No U.S. president has reached out more sincerely, and frankly taken more political risk, in an effort to try to create an opening for engagement for Iran," he said. "All these initiatives have been rejected."

Morin said France and the U.S. agreed that there was no choice but "to work for new measures within the framework of the Security Council" — a stance echoed by Israel, Iran's most implacable foe.

Tehran's enrichment plans are "additional proof of the fact that Iran is ridiculing the entire world," said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. "The right response is to impose decisive and permanent sanctions on Iran."

Although material for the fissile core of a nuclear warhead must be enriched to a level of 90 percent or more, just getting its stockpile to the 20 percent mark would be a major step for Iran's nuclear program. While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step — moving from 20 to 90 percent — would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.

Achieving the 20-percent level "would be going most of the rest of the way to weapon-grade uranium," said David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspected proliferators.

Soltanieh declined to say how much of Iran's stockpile — now estimated at 1.8 tons — would be enriched. Nor did he say when the process would begin. Albright said enriching to higher levels could begin within a day — or only in several months, depending on how far technical preparations had progressed.

Apparent technical problems could also slow the process, he said.

Iran's enrichment program "should be like a Christmas tree in full light," he said. "In fact, the lights are flickering."

While Iran would be able to enrich up to 20 percent, a senior U.S official told the AP that the research reactor would run out of fuel before enough material was produced. He asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the issue.

Britain's Foreign Office said the "enriched uranium could not be used for the Tehran Research Reactor as Iran does not have the technology to manufacture it into fuel rods."

Legal constraints could tie Iran's hands as well. A senior official from one of the IAEA's 35 board member nations senior official said he believed Tehran was obligated to notify the agency 60 days in advance of starting to enrich to higher levels.

The official asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the issue.

The Iranian move came just days after Ahmadinejad appeared to move close to endorsing the original deal, which foresaw Tehran exporting the bulk of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment and then conversion for fuel rods for the research reactor.

That plan was welcomed internationally because it would have delayed Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapons by shipping out about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile, thereby leaving it with not enough to make a bomb. Tehran denies nuclear weapons ambitions, insisting it needs to enrich to create fuel for an envisioned nuclear reactor network.

The proposal was endorsed by the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — the six powers that originally elicited a tentative approval from Iran in landmark talks last fall. Since then, however, mixed messages from Tehran have infuriated the U.S. and its European allies, who claim Iran is only stalling for time as it attempts to build a nuclear weapon.

Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions — and three sets of U.N. sanctions — aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.

Norman Einstein
02-08-2010, 05:14 PM
Send obama over, he will talk them out of doing anything further.

mlyonsd
02-08-2010, 05:17 PM
No worries. Since our new president has restored our upstanding moral views he'll convince the rest of the world this is a bad development and they'll jump in to stop this madness.

dirk digler
02-08-2010, 05:18 PM
nuke em

Chiefshrink
02-08-2010, 05:22 PM
Send obama over, he will talk them out of doing anything further.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Donger
02-08-2010, 05:24 PM
I don't like their headline, however. There's a difference between enriching to weapons-grade and having a working physics package. But I digress.

BucEyedPea
02-08-2010, 08:04 PM
Bullshit! As of last week I read they would send their uranium out, as demanded by the west, for enrichment for energy capacity.
This is a huge concession. Was even on Fox News 02/02/2010.

Someone is putting false reports on the newswires.

Donger
02-08-2010, 08:36 PM
Someone is putting false reports on the newswires.

Yes, the Iranians were apparently lying when they said they'd agree to export. Simply more delaying tactics while their centrifuges spin.

All it really takes is time. And, they are getting it.

fan4ever
02-08-2010, 09:41 PM
I have to believe Israel will handle this when they HAVE to and then Obama can say he dosen't condone Israel acting unilaterally, and he'll be off the hook and Israel can take all the political flack...at least that's how I see it going down.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 12:41 AM
Weapons-grade uranium is 95% or higher. 20% is consistent with medical isotopes, which Iran openly admits they are making and selling.

You cannot pretend you do not know you are being lied to this time. After Iraq, there is no question that the US Government lies about nuclear weapons to justify unprovoked attacks against nations whose oil the US Government covets.

If you allow this attack to happen without protest, then you are no better than the Germans who stood mute while Hitler marched Germany into WW2.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2010, 05:47 AM
Weapons-grade uranium is 95% or higher. 20% is consistent with medical isotopes, which Iran openly admits they are making and selling.

You cannot pretend you do not know you are being lied to this time. After Iraq, there is no question that the US Government lies about nuclear weapons to justify unprovoked attacks against nations whose oil the US Government covets.

If you allow this attack to happen without protest, then you are no better than the Germans who stood mute while Hitler marched Germany into WW2.

You get it! Instead Donger gets wood with these reports.

Amnorix
02-09-2010, 06:04 AM
To BEP and the Homicidal Jester -- how do you explain the statements of governmental representatives of France, England and, most importantly, Russia, included in the OP about further sanctions on Iran? Doesn't seem to square well with your assumptions regarding some kind of US military conspiracy to grab for oil.

To those on the right here -- what would you like Obama to do?

InChiefsHell
02-09-2010, 06:11 AM
To BEP and the Homicidal Jester -- how do you explain the statements of governmental representatives of France, England and, most importantly, Russia, included in the OP about further sanctions on Iran? Doesn't seem to square well with your assumptions regarding some kind of US military conspiracy to grab for oil.

To those on the right here -- what would you like Obama to do?

Sanctions. Hard core. The problem is, nobody can stop this fucker if he's really doing what they all say he "may" be doing. Allowing nukes in the hands of the Iranians would be just about as disastrous as can be imagined. When the sanctions don't work (because they won't) then I don't know what the hell you do. But you DON'T stand in Israel's way if they try to do something to defend themselves.

As to the rest of the world's reaction...they all were on board with the Iraq thing as well...how soon we all forget. Maybe it was some grand conspiracy...or maybe the UN and the IAEA are full of buffoons.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2010, 06:11 AM
To BEP and the Homicidal Jester -- how do you explain the statements of governmental representatives of France, England and, most importantly, Russia, included in the OP about further sanctions on Iran? Doesn't seem to square well with your assumptions regarding some kind of US military conspiracy to grab for oil.


That's not really a question though is it?

The problem is the west, not just the US, which has a history of such actions in the ME. Crack a history book pre WWI. While you're at it, look up the word conspiracy. You are mis-using it. You only support this because it's a D in power. If it were an R you'd use more critical thinking than current herd mentality for logic. Our FP is the same regardless of who is in power.


To those on the right here -- what would you like Obama to do?
To adopt the idea of co-existence and stop building bases in the ME.

So what if they have a nuclear weapon. Sovereign nations have a right to defend themselves from invaders too. We in their backyard on the east, the west, and even in the north. They're scared.
Pakistan, India, Russia, France and we have them. MAD works. Some don't like that—the hegemons who want to control the world.

You might try reading more of the other documents that are from the same AEI crowd on re-creating the ME beginning with Iraq. Such as a "Clean Break". Nation building run amock using black propaganda to pave the way to win the minds of sheep.

Amnorix
02-09-2010, 06:55 AM
Sanctions. Hard core.

So a UN backed solution? Or unilateral by the US? If it's unilateral, then it won't hurt much, will it? We're not exactly Iran's biggest trading partner after all.

If UN backed, then I guess you agree with the current policy, yes?

Amnorix
02-09-2010, 07:01 AM
That's not really a question though is it?

The problem is the west, not just the US, which has a history of such actions in the ME. Crack a history book pre WWI. While you're at it, look up the word conspiracy. You are mis-using it. You only support this because it's a D in power. If it were an R you'd use more critical thinking than current herd mentality for logic. Our FP is the same regardless of who is in power.

I've read many pre-WWII history books. Right now it's a History of Venice. Have no fear, I'm not just a WWII guy. For example I'm also familiar with the Civil War and how Abraham Lincoln did not go around raping slaves. But I digress.

Actually, I havent' said what I support, have I? I know one thing -- I'm not enamored of the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons capability.

I wouldn't consider Russia as part of the generic "West", and in fact they have not exactly been an avid supporter of our Iranian policy to date, for somewhat obvious reasons. If they are on board, then it sends a signal. An important one.

And yes, I'm fully aware of Russia's ME/Asian history as well, going all the way back to the Golden Horde, when the shoe was on the other foot.

So what if they have a nuclear weapon. Sovereign nations have a right to defend themselves from invaders too. We in their backyard on the east, the west, and even in the north. They're scared.
Pakistan, India, Russia, France and we have them. MAD works. Some don't like that—the hegemons who want to control the world.

MAD doesn't work too well when a suitcase bomb goes off in Manhattan at 12:00 noon on a random day of the week. Who do you kill then?

MAD only works when all people act rationally at all times. Do you trust every government to act rationally?

Donger
02-09-2010, 07:50 AM
Weapons-grade uranium is 95% or higher. 20% is consistent with medical isotopes, which Iran openly admits they are making and selling.

You cannot pretend you do not know you are being lied to this time. After Iraq, there is no question that the US Government lies about nuclear weapons to justify unprovoked attacks against nations whose oil the US Government covets.

If you allow this attack to happen without protest, then you are no better than the Germans who stood mute while Hitler marched Germany into WW2.

Did you even read the article? IRAN admits that they are going to enrich to 20% and have so informed the UN of their intentions.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:03 AM
Did you even read the article? IRAN admits that they are going to enrich to 20% and have so informed the UN of their intentions.

Yes 20%, as stated nuclear weapons require 95% + enrichment.

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:15 AM
Yes 20%, as stated nuclear weapons require 95% + enrichment.

Good. Now, did you read this?

While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step — moving from 20 to 90 percent — would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:21 AM
Good. Now, did you read this?

While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step — moving from 20 to 90 percent — would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.

You do realise Iran signed the Nuclear non proliferation treaty and IS playing by the rules allowing inspections right? I'm sure you also realise that if we invade another country based on false pretenses Russia/China and for that matter 90% of the world will see us as the bad guys right? World War III/IV will include the US, Great Britain, and Israel against the rest? I don't like our chances without the use of Nukes and even then we lose.

wild1
02-09-2010, 08:24 AM
You do realise Iran signed the Nuclear non proliferation treaty

Of which the IAEA has declared them to be in violation several times before.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:25 AM
Of which the IAEA has declared them to be in violation several times before.

Can you tell me the last time Iran started a war with anyone? Now tell me the last time We started a war?

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:26 AM
You do realise Iran signed the Nuclear non proliferation treaty and IS playing by the rules allowing inspections right? I'm sure you also realise that if we invade another country based on false pretenses Russia/China and for that matter 90% of the world will see us as the bad guys right? World War III/IV will include the US, Great Britain, and Israel against the rest? I don't like our chances without the use of Nukes and even then we lose.

Yes, I realize that Iran is a NPT signatory. Are you aware that they have been in violation of that treaty by building secret enrichment facilities?

It's quite simple: you are either okay with Iran gaining nuclear arms or you are not. BEP is open that she's fine with it. Are you?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:30 AM
Yes, I realize that Iran is a NPT signatory. Are you aware that they have been in violation of that treaty by building secret enrichment facilities?

It's quite simple: you are either okay with Iran gaining nuclear arms or you are not. BEP is open that she's fine with it. Are you?

I don't believe they are in violation as they've always informed us of what they're doing 6 months in advance, merely propaganda as far as i'm concerned.
I would rather they didn't have them but i'm not willing to destroy this country further based on crazy what if scenarios. Israel refuses to sign the NNPT but i don't see anyone suggesting we invade them or even catalogue all of their Nuclear Weapons through inspections as they flat out refuse inspections.

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:35 AM
I don't believe they are in violation as they've always informed us of what they're doing 6 months in advance

No, they haven't.

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 08:36 AM
Sanctions. Hard core. The problem is, nobody can stop this ****er if he's really doing what they all say he "may" be doing. Allowing nukes in the hands of the Iranians would be just about as disastrous as can be imagined. When the sanctions don't work (because they won't) then I don't know what the hell you do. But you DON'T stand in Israel's way if they try to do something to defend themselves.

As to the rest of the world's reaction...they all were on board with the Iraq thing as well...how soon we all forget. Maybe it was some grand conspiracy...or maybe the UN and the IAEA are full of buffoons.

Just like the sanctions didn't work for Iraq; France and Germany were still bying cheap oil under the table, therefore funding Hussein and his military.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:38 AM
Just like the sanctions didn't work for Iraq; France and Germany were still bying cheap oil under the table, therefore funding Hussein and his military.

Part of the reason we invaded in the early 90's, we cannot tolerate someone selling cheap oil.

wild1
02-09-2010, 08:43 AM
Can you tell me the last time Iran started a war with anyone? Now tell me the last time We started a war?

You held up that they were signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. I pointed out that they have been found in violation of it many times. If they have never felt themselves bound by it in the past, why would we expect them to suddenly feel that way in the future?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:53 AM
You held up that they were signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. I pointed out that they have been found in violation of it many times. If they have never felt themselves bound by it in the past, why would we expect them to suddenly feel that way in the future?

Where/When have they been in violation?

Donger
02-09-2010, 09:01 AM
Where/When have they been in violation?

On 6 June 2003, the Director General submitted to the Board of Governors a report (GOV/2003/40) providing further information on the nature of the safeguards issues involved and the actions that needed to be taken, and describing developments in that regard since March 2003. In that report, the Director General stated that Iran had failed to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material imported into Iran and the subsequent processing and use of the material, and the declaring of facilities and other locations where the material had been stored and processed.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf

wild1
02-09-2010, 09:13 AM
Where/When have they been in violation?

I would suggest you do some research on the topic if you aren't familiar with Iran's nuclear program.

wild1
02-09-2010, 09:15 AM
Good. Now, did you read this?

While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step — moving from 20 to 90 percent — would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.

Assuming this means weapons grade would be two years away at the most, what other hurdles do you see as being in their way? What remaining tech would they need to acquire or develop in order to fully reach nuclear power status? What would their capabilities be at that point?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 09:20 AM
I would suggest you do some research on the topic if you aren't familiar with Iran's nuclear program.

Oh i have, i've seen every editorial piece claiming this as merely an opinionated scenario.

wild1
02-09-2010, 09:24 AM
Oh i have, i've seen every editorial piece claiming this as merely an opinionated scenario.

Do you feel Iran should be allowed to become a nuclear power with the world's blessing? Do you feel we can place our trust in them to handle it responsibly and rest easy that they will?

Donger
02-09-2010, 09:36 AM
Assuming this means weapons grade would be two years away at the most, what other hurdles do you see as being in their way? What remaining tech would they need to acquire or develop in order to fully reach nuclear power status? What would their capabilities be at that point?

Just time. How to make a working physics package isn't really super difficult.

wild1
02-09-2010, 09:52 AM
Just time. How to make a working physics package isn't really super difficult.

So then they would have something that would explode. What kind of yield are we probably looking at? Would they have delivery systems that could threaten the region?

Donger
02-09-2010, 05:46 PM
So then they would have something that would explode. What kind of yield are we probably looking at? Would they have delivery systems that could threaten the region?

Yes, it wouldn't be that difficult for them to construct a fission weapon. Thermonuclear? No, I would seriously doubt that for a number of reasons. But, a good solid 50 to 100 kt would be doable.

Iran's got an MRBM that can throw a 2,000 pound warhead 1,200 miles.

Saul Good
02-09-2010, 07:07 PM
MAD doesn't work too well when a suitcase bomb goes off in Manhattan at 12:00 noon on a random day of the week. Who do you kill then?

MAD only works when all people act rationally at all times. Do you trust every government to act rationally?

It also doesn't work when your enemy welcomes his own demise en route to martyrdom.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:10 PM
It also doesn't work when your enemy welcomes his own demise en route to martyrdom.

What enemy? the 100+ Al Ciaduh operatives that put the boogey in boogeyman?

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:13 PM
Oh i have, i've seen every editorial piece claiming this as merely an opinionated scenario.

Did you bother to read the link in #30?

BucEyedPea
02-09-2010, 08:21 PM
It also doesn't work when your enemy welcomes his own demise en route to martyrdom.

Except the leaders of those countries never blow themselves up. Ever notice that. And is Iran after a dirty bomb or an nuclear warhead. I always got it was a nuclear warhead. Either way it's just more fear mongering bullshit by the same folks that brought us Iraq. But then it gives Donger wood so the entertainment is good.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:28 PM
Did you bother to read the link in #30?

Bad Gateway

The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
Apache Server at www.iaea.org Port 80

ROYC75
02-09-2010, 08:33 PM
To BEP and the Homicidal Jester -- how do you explain the statements of governmental representatives of France, England and, most importantly, Russia, included in the OP about further sanctions on Iran? Doesn't seem to square well with your assumptions regarding some kind of US military conspiracy to grab for oil.

To those on the right here -- what would you like Obama to do?

I think the beer summit worked well, since Obo knows a thing or 2 he's learned from Ayers, I think he could relate to what Imanutjob wants to do.

ROYC75
02-09-2010, 08:34 PM
Do you feel Iran should be allowed to become a nuclear power with the world's blessing? Do you feel we can place our trust in them to handle it responsibly and rest easy that they will?


In a word ? No.

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:35 PM
Bad Gateway

The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
Apache Server at www.iaea.org Port 80

OMG! "THEY" took it down!!!

BucEyedPea
02-09-2010, 08:35 PM
In a word ? No.

Pakistan? Russia?

ROYC75
02-09-2010, 08:44 PM
Pakistan? Russia?

They both scare me, really, we can you trust anymore.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:47 PM
They both scare me, really, who can you trust anymore.

I don't trust the "leaders" of any country especially ours.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:48 PM
OMG! "THEY" took it down!!!

link? ;)

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:49 PM
link? ;)

I contacted "them," and "they" agreed to fix the link. You may peruse at your leisure.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 08:58 PM
Did you bother to read the link in #30?

Ok what section in specific are you referring to?

Donger
02-09-2010, 08:59 PM
Ok what section in specific are you referring to?

Well, I already quoted one part in post #30. You can also check out page 9 if you feel like it.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 09:04 PM
Well, I already quoted one part in post #30. You can also check out page 9 if you feel like it.

Ok i read page 9 and didn't see anything particularly disturbing.

Donger
02-09-2010, 09:06 PM
Ok i read page 9 and didn't see anything particularly disturbing.

That's nice. But, you being disturbed wasn't the issue. Iran being in non-compliance of NPT safeguards was.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 09:10 PM
That's nice. But, you being disturbed wasn't the issue. Iran being in non-compliance of NPT safeguards was.

Ok disturbing=non compliance, i see them bending over backwards to our demands.

Donger
02-09-2010, 09:35 PM
Ok disturbing=non compliance, i see them bending over backwards to our demands.

You're welcome. And, BTW, it's not "our" demands (the USA). It's the UN's demands.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 07:22 AM
You're welcome. And, BTW, it's not "our" demands (the USA). It's the UN's demands.

Like I said our demands.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:25 AM
You're welcome. And, BTW, it's not "our" demands (the USA). It's the UN's demands.

All of a sudden the right supports the UN. Tell me Donger what five countries really control the UN?

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:26 AM
They both scare me, really, we can you trust anymore.

The Bush Doctrine has encouraged the recent efforts for nukes....not that Iraq had any nor does Iran.
Even if Iran had them, they're not likely to point it at us. They could point it at Tel Aviv but covert activities work better for them.

wild1
02-10-2010, 07:45 AM
Yes, it wouldn't be that difficult for them to construct a fission weapon. Thermonuclear? No, I would seriously doubt that for a number of reasons. But, a good solid 50 to 100 kt would be doable.

Iran's got an MRBM that can throw a 2,000 pound warhead 1,200 miles.


So that's likely around 3 times as powerful as the Hiroshima/Nagasaki devices, and likely the capability to deliver them anywhere between Pakistan and the Mediterranean.


Once they reach this capability, would they then be able to produce whatever number of warheads they desire? What would keep them from developing not just one but a few dozen or a few hundred? Would they have access to enough uranium?

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:51 AM
So that's likely around 3 times as powerful as the Hiroshima/Nagasaki devices, and likely the capability to deliver them anywhere between Pakistan and the Mediterranean.


Once they reach this capability, would they then be able to produce whatever number of warheads they desire? What would keep them from developing not just one but a few dozen or a few hundred? Would they have access to enough uranium?

I wouldn't rely on Donger's reports at all. Our intel community hasn't.

And despite the hysteria about Iran’s imminent testing of a bomb, the U.S. intelligence community still has not changed its finding that Tehran is not seeking a bomb.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/04/will-obama-play-the-war-card/

Donger
02-10-2010, 08:33 AM
So that's likely around 3 times as powerful as the Hiroshima/Nagasaki devices, and likely the capability to deliver them anywhere between Pakistan and the Mediterranean.


Once they reach this capability, would they then be able to produce whatever number of warheads they desire? What would keep them from developing not just one but a few dozen or a few hundred? Would they have access to enough uranium?

The number of warheads that could be created is simply a matter of having enough fissionable material.

Donger
02-10-2010, 08:37 AM
I wouldn't rely on Donger's reports at all. Our intel community hasn't.



http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/04/will-obama-play-the-war-card/

Meh: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125565146184988939.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:45 AM
War Street Journal is neocon. Your crotch must be bursting with that. But everytime I check out your links (not referring to your...ahem). I find links that contradict them.

Donger
02-10-2010, 08:49 AM
War Street Journal is neocon. Your crotch must be bursting with that. But everytime I check out your links (not referring to your...ahem). I find links that contradict them.

You find links on the Interwebs that contradict stuff? No way!

Anyway, we'll see if Obama will (or has) ordered a new NIE.

Hog Farmer
02-10-2010, 09:20 AM
All of a sudden the right supports the UN. Tell me Donger what five countries really control the UN?


I know ! I know!

Umm....Australia, Umm...... Malaysia, Ummm.....Yemen, Ummm......Alaska, and Somolia. :hmmm:

Donger
02-10-2010, 09:21 AM
Does anyone else find BEP's apparent fascination with the erect state of my penis a little odd?

Hog Farmer
02-10-2010, 09:23 AM
Does anyone else find BEP's apparent fascination with the erect state of my penis a little odd?

I have noticed that. I think she's been grilling too much pork.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 10:27 AM
Does anyone else find BEP's apparent fascination with the erect state of my penis a little odd?

No, it's you sticking it out so hard on threads about Iran, like a missile. Each report I notice gives you wood.

Hog Farmer
02-10-2010, 10:31 AM
I think it would be cool if Irans big shock for the 11th was a nuclear detonation. I'm bored !

Donger
02-10-2010, 10:40 AM
No, it's you sticking it out so hard on threads about Iran, like a missile. Each report I notice gives you wood.

I actually hope the situation can be resolved without hostilities. But, it's nice to hear that my penis is always on the tip of your tongue.

InChiefsHell
02-10-2010, 10:44 AM
I think it would be cool if Irans big shock for the 11th was a planned nuclear detonation gone awry and reducing Tehran to a pile of rubble. I'm bored !

FYP

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 10:47 AM
You find links on the Interwebs that contradict stuff? No way!
Yes I do and as a matter of fact it's the same sources that said we were getting BS on Iraq. Their track record is excellent.
Problem is such sources are not on the MSN generally and they're needed in the debate.

Hog Farmer
02-10-2010, 12:47 PM
FYP



Perfect!

wild1
02-10-2010, 12:57 PM
The number of warheads that could be created is simply a matter of having enough fissionable material.


Thanks for your commentary.

Is this available to Iran as a natural resource, or is it purchased from other countries?

Who is selling it to them, and do they have access to an unlimited amount?

Donger
02-11-2010, 09:43 AM
Thanks for your commentary.

Is this available to Iran as a natural resource, or is it purchased from other countries?

Who is selling it to them, and do they have access to an unlimited amount?

I believe that Iran does have some indigenous uranium ore. I don't know how much, however.

Donger
02-11-2010, 02:47 PM
Anyway, we'll see if Obama will (or has) ordered a new NIE.

It's almost like I knew something yesterday...

Iran resumes nuclear weapon work, U.S. report expected to say (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/11/us.iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2)

Washington (CNN) -- A soon-to-be released U.S. assessment of Iran's nuclear program is expected to conclude that the government has resumed limited work on a nuclear weapon, according to a U.S. official.

Such a conclusion in the new National Intelligence Assessment would revise a controversial assessment released in 2007 that said Iran had stopped its weaponization program in 2003. Many Western intelligence services disagreed with the U.S. conclusion at the time.

The U.S. official -- who is familiar with the report but is not authorized to speak on the record because of the sensitive nature of the information -- said the new assessment "will move forward a tad" Iranian efforts on weaponization. The official says Iran is now focused on research of a program as opposed to full-blown development of a nuclear warhead: "The emphasis is on the 'R,' not the 'D.' "

Nuclear weapons expert David Albright disagrees, maintaining that the Iranians don't need to do their own research because it has been done by other nations.

"They are trying to copy, to learn how to make weapons based on what they know from others. This is development," he said.

But even as Iran continues to develop various nuclear capabilities that it says are for peaceful purposes, both Albright and Obama's director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, say they believe that it has not made the political decision to move forward and actually build nuclear weapons.

Recent actions by Iran, however, have given the Obama administration new ammunition to support its contention that Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons eventually, a move the United States believes would destabilize the Middle East.

At a news conference on Tuesday, President Obama chastised the Iran leadership, saying that "despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, that they in fact continue to purse a course that would lead to weaponization."

Two events reinforced the administration's position.

Last week, Iran said it had launched a satellite into space for telecommunication and research purposes.

Then on Sunday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his government would begin enriching uranium to a level of 20 percent at its Natanz enrichment facility for use in a medical research reactor.

Iran had been enriching uranium to a very low level of 3.5 percent but needed a higher level of enrichment to produce medical isotopes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency appeared to have brokered a deal with Iran to send its low-enriched uranium to Russia or France for conversion to fuel rods that could be used in its medical reactor. But Iran backed out of the deal.

Albright said Iran's decision to pursue the enrichment itself puts the country on a path to produce fissile material needed for a nuclear weapon. Although 90 percent enrichment is needed for a bomb, Albright said, "once they successfully obtain 20 percent enrichment, they are 90 percent on the way to being able to produce weapons-grade uranium."

The U.S. director of national intelligence tied Iran's satellite launch to its efforts to improve its ballistic long-range missile force. Blair recently said at a congressional hearing that the Iranian launch "enhances its power projection and provides Tehran the means for delivering a possible nuclear payload."

He said there are other indications that Tehran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons and pointed to the public disclosure last fall of a secret second enrichment facility near the city of Qom.

The intelligence community is looking for signs of other unknown enrichment facilities since the Iranians tried to hide the Qom plant by building it into a mountain.

Albright, who is founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, believes that the discovery of the Qom facility has set back Iranian efforts.

He says Qom "would most likely have been the breakout facility" for nuclear weapons production.

He doubts Iran would use Natanz, which is under the watchful eye of the IAEA, to produce weapons-grade uranium.

"Iran needs a secret facility to do so, mostly out of fear of a commando raid by the Israelis," he said.

It is unlikely, Albright adds, that Iran has a third enrichment plant in the works, because its "resources are strained. ... Iran doesn't have a deep enough bench of nuclear scientists and experts."

Officials and experts believe the Natanz facility has also had its share of problems. Albright said Iran has "struggled" with getting the performance from the centrifuges that is needed for enrichment.

A new report issued by Albright's think tank states, "Iran has moved too quickly to install centrifuges at the expense of developing competence in operating them reliably. In the process, it has made many mistakes."

The report says Iran might have experienced a number of problems resulting from outdated centrifuge parts, impurities in domestic uranium stock, operational instabilities and possibly sabotage.

Blair told Congress that although Iran has significantly increased its number of centrifuges at Natanz over the past two years, only about half of them work. He said Iran "has had problems operating those centrifuges, which has constrained the production of low and rich uranium."

But despite a number of problems with its program, the director of national intelligence said, "Iran has the scientific, technical [and] industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years."