NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html

Oh yes. They are only enriching for peaceful purposes.

But I suppose people won't believe that Iran is making a nuke until downtown Tel Aviv is a smoking glass crater.

damn beat me to this article.


armageddon anyone????

who wants beer? I know I could use one.

Heard stories of this type before. It will be contamination from equipment bought from Pakistan. Iran does not have enough centrifuges to perform enrichment to weapons-grade, not even close, end of story.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html

Oh yes. They are only enriching for peaceful purposes.

But I suppose people won't believe that Iran is making a nuke until downtown Tel Aviv is a smoking glass crater.

I never doubted it. I'm of the opinion the Iranians aren't stupid enough to use on directly. I find it far more likely they'll put a few in a base and have the guards look the other way when Al Quaeda smuggles them out, then act surprised and execute a few guards when it goes off in Tel Aviv.

Heard stories of this type before. It will be contamination from equipment bought from Pakistan. Iran does not have enough centrifuges to perform enrichment to weapons-grade, not even close, end of story.

I'm so glad that you know exactly what equipment the Iranians have.

Who says Iran is linked to al-qaeda?


If you say the CIA I'll slap you with a trout.

IAEA finds weapons-grade uranium in Iran

"But they said the density of enrichment appeared close to or beyond weapons grade _ the level used to make nuclear warheads."

Remarkable, you appear to know more about what grade it actually is than they do.

Who says Iran is linked to al-qaeda?


If you say the CIA I'll slap you with a trout.

Mmmm... Trout.


The CIA!

You don't have to be using weapons-grade uranium for weapons...do you?

Who says Iran is linked to al-qaeda?


If you say the CIA I'll slap you with a trout.

Well, replace Al Quaeda with [Insert Generic, Anti-Jewish/Western Terrorist Group of your choice]. My point remains; hell, it might even be a fake one created by the Iranians, there's enough of them about to not notice one more.

You don't have to be using weapons-grade uranium for weapons...do you?

You can use any grade of uranium to make a club.

"But they said the density of enrichment appeared close to or beyond weapons grade _ the level used to make nuclear warheads."

Remarkable, you appear to know more about what grade it actually is than they do.

Actually, thats a good point. The article also says they're still running tests on it. Might be the eqivalent of a glowstick or something.

Actually, thats a good point.

I like the way you preface your comment with the word 'actually', as if bad points are my normal stock in trade.

Do they have weapons grade uranium? I don't know, but leaping to the conclusion that they do when those in a position to know haven't decided yet seems a bit premature.

I'm not making political points here, just noting what the sourced article actually states.

"But they said the density of enrichment appeared close to or beyond weapons grade _ the level used to make nuclear warheads."

Remarkable, you appear to know more about what grade it actually is than they do.

Beyond weapons grade is good enough.

Actually, tests by the US in the late 1970s indicated that you can use uranium that is only enriched to 50 percent - the so-called "weapons-grade" of 90 to 95 percent is not necessary in a suitable implosion device. What matters is obtaining a rapid enough assembly speed during initial detonation to overcome problems with side-fission reactions with other isotopes of uranium or plutonium (depending on the material being used).

In fact, the research indicated that with proper assembly velocity, the contaminants were a benefit, and simplified design (for instance, the design no longer required a source of neutrons to kick off the reaction, thus dispensing with things like polonium).

The velocity needed is only around 5km/sec, and is easily obtained with modern explosives. Velocities as high as 8km/sec are common with current explosives, and the design for a weapon with an assembly speed that high would be even easier, and the weapon far more compact.

I'm so glad that you know exactly what equipment the Iranians have.
I do, yes.

The IAEA has seen it. :rolleyes:

They recently removed IAEA seals off their kit to use it, remember? Like, how did they get there?

I had to re-read the title... I thought it said IKEA discovers uranium in Iran...

You gotta hand it to the swedish...

Beyond weapons grade is good enough.

Quite possibly, but we don't know if it is "close to or beyond", do we?

As for you other remarks on the utility of non-weapons grade material in weaponry: entirely possible, but it still wouldn't be defined as 'weapons grade'.

I do, yes.

The IAEA has seen it. :rolleyes:

They recently removed IAEA seals off their kit to use it, remember? Like, how did they get there?

Oh, like the IAEA knew how much the North Koreans were doing, and how much the Indians were doing, and how much Pakistan was doing.

I recall a lot of surprise on the part of the IAEA.

I also recall German companies selling centrifuges to Pakistan and Iran that are smaller than a dishwasher and draw about as much current as a dishwasher, that can be run independently in any home or building.

When Iran detonates a nuke, you'll owe me dinner at the restaurant of my choice anywhere in the world.

In fact, the research indicated that with proper assembly velocity, the contaminants were a benefit, and simplified design (for instance, the design no longer required a source of neutrons to kick off the reaction, thus dispensing with things like polonium).

The velocity needed is only around 5km/sec, and is easily obtained with modern explosives. Velocities as high as 8km/sec are common with current explosives, and the design for a weapon with an assembly speed that high would be even easier, and the weapon far more compact.
But can it be done reliably? ie - every time? Remember, they don't have the supercomputer modelling resources to get it right first time. It's easy to say a given explosive can provide a particular velocity, but it is actually a significant engineering challenge. Get it wrong and you've got an expensive dirty bomb and the world laughing.

I bet the IAEA found weapons grade uranium in the US.

who wants beer? I know I could use one.

*reads article*

:headbang:

*raises hand*

When Iran detonates a nuke, you'll owe me dinner at the restaurant of my choice anywhere in the world.
Heh, I'd offer you dinner if America detonates one, but then I know I'd be buying. :rolleyes:

This reallllllly sucks.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-771242@51-677013,0.html

Les traces d'UHE et d'uranium faiblement enrichi (UFE) - qui sert lui au nucléaire civil - avaient été découvertes dans le passé sur différents sites nucléaires iraniens. Elles pourraient s'expliquer, en grande partie, par une contamination au contact de machines d'occasion importées du Pakistan.

Un diplomate basé à Vienne, où se trouve le siège de l'AIEA, a confirmé cette découverte tout en en tempérant la gravité : "Ce n'est pas une preuve de culpabilité." "Il n'est pas clair que ces particules proviennent de centrifugeuses ayant été contaminées ou de quelque chose de nouveau", a indiqué un autre fonctionnaire proche de l'agence de sûreté nucléaire de l'ONU.

Meh. And they should hurry up and get those nukes already.

I like the way you preface your comment with the word 'actually', as if bad points are my normal stock in trade.

Do they have weapons grade uranium? I don't know, but leaping to the conclusion that they do when those in a position to know haven't decided yet seems a bit premature.

I'm not making political points here, just noting what the sourced article actually states.

Actually [How ironic] I started with 'Actually' not because I was attacking you old boy, but because I realised I had been too hasty in acknowledging the article and was trying to extricate myself from being to quick to judge and being, as you say, too premature.


Really, I wasn't attacking you, and I apologise if it seemed that way. I have the greatest respect for your arguing skills, BWO

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html

Oh yes. They are only enriching for peaceful purposes.

But I suppose people won't believe that Iran is making a nuke until downtown Tel Aviv is a smoking glass crater.
I've always believed that Iran was making a nuke. I've also always believed that the threat to the region was being more than a little hyped by people like you. So this article--assuming that the weapons-grade uranium was made in Iran as opposed to contamination like TG suggested--has come as no big surprise to me.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-771242@51-677013,0.html

Les traces d'UHE et d'uranium faiblement enrichi (UFE) - qui sert lui au nucléaire civil - avaient été découvertes dans le passé sur différents sites nucléaires iraniens. Elles pourraient s'expliquer, en grande partie, par une contamination au contact de machines d'occasion importées du Pakistan.

Meh. And they should hurry up and get those nukes already.
:p

Chalks up another w1n.

It's a moot point anyway. The only country that will ever use nuclear weapons is the US. They'll get their first strike in first, and the irony of the situation will create a Guinness Book of Records entry for the biggest synchronised eye-rolling in the world.

Actually [How ironic] I started with 'Actually' not because I was attacking you old boy, but because I realised I had been too hasty in acknowledging the article and was trying to extricate myself from being to quick to judge and being, as you say, too premature.

No offense taken.

No offense taken.

Thank-you. I'm rather relieved at that.

:p

Chalks up another w1n.

It's a moot point anyway. The only country that will ever use nuclear weapons is the US. They'll get their first strike in first, and the irony of the situation will create a Guinness Book of Records entry for the biggest synchronised eye-rolling in the world.

I highly doubt the US would use a nuke on Iran. The only scenerio that I could see is that if Iran would have launched one on Israel. Other than that the political fallout would be great. We could drop every bomb we had on Iran and not get as much flak as one nuke detonation.

Other than that the political fallout would be great.

Groan.

I'm so glad that you know exactly what equipment the Iranians have.


Hey- he said "end of story". That makes it final and official.

Hey- he said "end of story". That makes it final and official.

I believe that was an opinion old chap.

I highly doubt the US would use a nuke on Iran. The only scenerio that I could see is that if Iran would have launched one on Israel. Other than that the political fallout would be great. We could drop every bomb we had on Iran and not get as much flak as one nuke detonation.
A recent article by Sy Hersh noted that the Joint Chiefs are adamantly opposing the administration on the use of nukes, but that the administration is pushing hard for it. Do you think that Bush would give two shits about replacing every one of them until he got a panel that agreed to let him nuke Iran? I don't.

I highly doubt the US would use a nuke on Iran. The only scenerio that I could see is that if Iran would have launched one on Israel. Other than that the political fallout would be great. We could drop every bomb we had on Iran and not get as much flak as one nuke detonation.
I'm not so sure. Like an Enron-esque board, the Bush administration seems to pull all sorts of crap so transparently insane, no-one collects their wits fast enough to pin them down. If the US bombed Iran, there would be a great deal of diplomatic trouble. If the US dropped nukes, they would be a dozen city blocks clear of the press conference before the journalists finished mouthing "What the fuck?" and exchanging glances.

A recent article by Sy Hersh noted that the Joint Chiefs are adamantly opposing the administration on the use of nukes, but that the administration is pushing hard for it. Do you think that Bush would give two shits about replacing every one of them until he got a panel that agreed to let him nuke Iran? I don't.
Be nice if he did. That way his popularity would drop a bit more.It's already lower than Nixon's was when he stepped down because of Watergate.Then maybe he'd see sense and resign.Then Dick Cheney would be in power, and we'd start all over again.
Hooray!

I highly doubt the US would use a nuke on Iran. The only scenerio that I could see is that if Iran would have launched one on Israel. Other than that the political fallout would be great. We could drop every bomb we had on Iran and not get as much flak as one nuke detonation.
IMO neither scenario is likely. Iran is after the Big One, of course, and it will use it as a deterrent... a flagrant disregard for the NPT it is, though, and a most unwelcome development, as Iran has already proved that it can attack cities with ballistic missiles...

IMO neither scenario is likely. Iran is after the Big One, of course, and it will use it as a deterrent... a flagrant disregard for the NPT it is, though, and a most unwelcome development, as Iran has already proved that it can attack cities with ballistic missiles...


And once they have The Big One, everyone else will be forced to deal with them on THEIR terms, rather than our own. There is no reason to wait til they are more of a threat.

I'm for stopping them cold and forcing them to comply. I dont think the preemptive use of nukes against them is needed.

I'm not so sure. Like an Enron-esque board, the Bush administration seems to pull all sorts of crap so transparently insane, no-one collects their wits fast enough to pin them down. If the US bombed Iran, there would be a great deal of diplomatic trouble. If the US dropped nukes, they would be a dozen city blocks clear of the press conference before the journalists finished mouthing "What the fuck?" and exchanging glances.

1 pint of respect on the lazy susan rotating in your direction, courtesy of GreaterPacificNations. Should you ever find yourself in Sydney, you may redeem that pints worth of respect (and any more you may have earned) for the same amount in a beverage of your choice.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html

Oh yes. They are only enriching for peaceful purposes.

But I suppose people won't believe that Iran is making a nuke until downtown Tel Aviv is a smoking glass crater.

Anyone surprised by this? I know I'm not. Alwell... goes to show that it isn't for peace-ful purposes after all.

Who says Iran is linked to al-qaeda?


If you say the CIA I'll slap you with a trout.

Nah just Hezbollah.

And once they have The Big One, everyone else will be forced to deal with them on THEIR terms, rather than our own. There is no reason to wait til they are more of a threat.

I'm for stopping them cold and forcing them to comply. I dont think the preemptive use of nukes against them is needed.
To be cliched, how weel does this argument work when talking about all other countries with nuclear weapons, instead of Iran?

Heard stories of this type before. It will be contamination from equipment bought from Pakistan. Iran does not have enough centrifuges to perform enrichment to weapons-grade, not even close, end of story.

TG,

If Iran is not pursuing a bomb, then why would they procure those centrifuges (and a Chinese design for the bomb - Iran itself admitted to that) from Pakistan - a non NPT nation ?

Do you agree they had the intent to make a bomb ?

I am not asking you if they are actually making a bomb, how close they are to getting one or if they should be punished for the intent.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html

Oh yes. They are only enriching for peaceful purposes.

But I suppose people won't believe that Iran is making a nuke until downtown Tel Aviv is a smoking glass crater.

The yanks need more "evidence" before they can go Ghengis-Khan on Iran too. A fuzzy satellite photo of a little girl standing next to a truck or a receipt that proves Osama bought cigarettes from a guy who's got an aunt in Iran should do it.

I also recall German companies selling centrifuges to Pakistan and Iran that are smaller than a dishwasher and draw about as much current as a dishwasher, that can be run independently in any home or building..

Well, with perpetual motion machines, who needs uranium? Assuming the laws of thermodynamics are still in force, a uranium centrifuge that drew as much current as a dishwasher could probably produce a few grams per year of weapons grade uranium. Unless of course the voltage to go with that current is ungodly high.

Most likely source of confusion here, is the number of reporters who have never met, or even heard of, Jack Shit. Especially on Fox :)

You don't have to be using weapons-grade uranium for weapons...do you?

There is very little point to enrch uranium to that level if you aren't going to use it for weapons.

I'm so glad that you know exactly what equipment the Iranians have.

Hiding enough installations to enrich uranium to this level while being closely monitored would be quite an achievement.

Anyone surprised by this? I know I'm not. Alwell... goes to show that it isn't for peace-ful purposes after all.

No. It goes to show that you, like Deep Kimchi, aren't above making olympic class leaps of faith to go from ambigious traces to "they've got nukes!"

I'm reserving judgement on this until more information comes out. We all know how the case of nigerian yellowcake turned out.

No. It goes to show that you, like Deep Kimchi, aren't above making olympic class leaps of faith to go from ambigious traces to "they've got nukes!"

I never said they have nukes. I have been saying that they have been trying to get nukes. I still think they are trying to get nukes.

No. It goes to show that you, like Deep Kimchi, aren't above making olympic class leaps of faith to go from ambigious traces to "they've got nukes!"

I'm reserving judgement on this until more information comes out. We all know how the case of nigerian yellowcake turned out.
You don't need any leaps, either of faith or of logic, if the found uranium is indeed of weapons grade.

You don't need any leaps, either of faith or of logic, if the found uranium is indeed of weapons grade.

Which we don't bloody know yet. All we've got at the moment is speculation, no more, no less. Anything beyond statements of radiation traces at this point is just scaremongering. As for what a diplomat has to say about it, you can bet your last penny that one of the biggest reasons why they wanted anonymity is so that their asses won't fry if it's a false alarm.

You don't need any leaps, either of faith or of logic, if the found uranium is indeed of weapons grade.

That somewhat depends how much it is. A few trace amounts are quite logical and not suspect. More than that however is reason to scratch behind ones ear.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html

Oh yes. They are only enriching for peaceful purposes.

But I suppose people won't believe that Iran is making a nuke until downtown Tel Aviv is a smoking glass crater.
Remind me again why I, as an American, should care whether or not Tel Aviv is blown away(Which would be better for the US).

If Iran is not pursuing a bomb, then why would they procure those centrifuges (and a Chinese design for the bomb - Iran itself admitted to that) from Pakistan - a non NPT nation ?

Why wouldn't they ? It is not as if the USA would be wiling to sell them those centrifuges - but they are needed for a civilian program. Nor do I see a lot of problems with knowing how a bomb is made.

To be cliched, how weel does this argument work when talking about all other countries with nuclear weapons, instead of Iran?

Once they have them, here is no more argument.

Which we don't bloody know yet. All we've got at the moment is speculation, no more, no less. Anything beyond statements of radiation traces at this point is just scaremongering. As for what a diplomat has to say about it, you can bet your last penny that one of the biggest reasons why they wanted anonymity is so that their asses won't fry if it's a false alarm.
Yes, certainly it is a bit early to draw a definite conclusion.

Why wouldn't they ? It is not as if the USA would be wiling to sell them those centrifuges - but they are needed for a civilian program. Nor do I see a lot of problems with knowing how a bomb is made.
IIRC it is not quite OK for a member of the NPT to deal with a non-member of the NPT in all matters nuclear... I'm not quite sure, though.

I never said they have nukes. I have been saying that they have been trying to get nukes. I still think they are trying to get nukes.

I'm sure the could use divert income from the vast oil reserves for a wee bit to buy a few black market ones from the Old Soviet Union marketeers if they really really wanted them.

I'm sure the could use divert income from the vast oil reserves for a wee bit to buy a few black market ones from the Old Soviet Union marketeers if they really really wanted them.
Thankfully, the black market in ex-Soviet nukes exists only in Hollywood films.

Thankfully, the black market in ex-Soviet nukes exists only in Hollywood films.

Really? How do you know....
*shifty eyes*

Really? How do you know....
*shifty eyes*
Why, no one in our armed forces wants to see a mushroom cloud over Moscow. :)

Get it wrong and you've got an expensive dirty bomb and the world laughing.

Even if the thing they launch at a populated city is only "an expensive dirty bomb" I seriously doubt that the world will be laughing. Most of it will be shooting back and the rest will be hiding in the basement or looting.

I have no doubt that Iran wants some big explody devices. The question is are even their hardliners willing to start a shooting war with the entire world just to hammer the Israilis? Probably not.

Although it would be better not to put it to the test. And I am not altogether sure that it can be stopped while the US has such a large commitment in Iraq after all, Iran would be an absolute bastard to crack with distractions like the wierdness happening in the country next door, especially given that there is a LOT of public support for the current Iranian government (within Iran anyway...), unlike Saddam, who just about everyone wanted out.

Thankfully, the black market in ex-Soviet nukes exists only in Hollywood films.

The only black market in nukes was the one which went on right under the noses of US and EU with the US turning a blind eye when it suited their interests of that time.

IIRC it is not quite OK for a member of the NPT to deal with a non-member of the NPT in all matters nuclear... I'm not quite sure, though.

Yes, NNPT forbids such cooperation outside the NNPT community.

TG,

If Iran is not pursuing a bomb, then why would they procure those centrifuges (and a Chinese design for the bomb - Iran itself admitted to that) from Pakistan - a non NPT nation ?

Do you agree they had the intent to make a bomb?
To make their own fuel for their nuclear reactors? Who in their right mind would sign up to energy dependency on Russia. I don't see many other countries in a hurry to hand over control of their energy supplies to them.

To make their own fuel for their nuclear reactors? Who in their right mind would sign up to energy dependency on Russia. I don't see many other countries in a hurry to hand over control of their energy supplies to them.
I'm sorry... What do you mean? Russia is a reliable energy (natural gas) supplier to the whole of Europe.

To make their own fuel for their nuclear reactors?

If it was just to make fuel, then why did they procure bomb design along with it from AQKhan ?

I'm sorry... What do you mean? Russia is a reliable energy (natural gas) supplier to the whole of Europe.

Bar Ukraine....

*whistles*

And we supply uranium to Bulgaria and Hungary, that's for sure.

I'm sorry... What do you mean? Russia is a reliable energy (natural gas) supplier to the whole of Europe.
And as far as the EU is concerned, as trustworthy as Microsoft.

Not that I'm kicking the place or the strategy - I'm ex-Russian, I work in energy, I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. Whatever Russia's track record of reliability, its power as the pre-eminent energy supplier makes people increasingly nervous, and Iran isn't eager to join the club.

Bar Ukraine....

*whistles*
What's the problem with Ukraine? They didn't want to pay, so... ;)

And as far as the EU is concerned, as trustworthy as Microsoft.

Not that I'm kicking the place or the strategy - I'm ex-Russian, I work in energy, I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. Whatever Russia's track record of reliability, its power as the pre-eminent energy supplier makes people increasingly nervous, and Iran isn't eager to join the club.
Oh, and I'm a 'present' Russian. :)

Well, the Soviet Union was, and Russia is, quite reliable. As for eagerness -- I think that China is also going to use our uranium enrichment facilites along with its own. Iran is already cooperating with Russia on Bushehr, and our enrichment plants are a bit under-utilized now, so... why not?

If it was just to make fuel, then why did they procure bomb design along with it from AQKhan ?
You'd be surprised what kind of stuff gets bundled into industrial contracts sometimes, and ends up sitting in a warehouse or on a shelf. It's like a "Do you want to go Large? 10c extra?" sort of thing. "Well seeing as you're buying our centrifuges and associated manuals and documentation, why not get this stack of fissile core drawings as well? 10% extra..." ... "Yeah, go on then."

Doesn't necessarily imply a high-level request. Could well be a purchase of opportunity by financial management. If that sounds crazy, remember, in a lot of places in the world, such discussions are run on a pretty informal footing.

Well, the Soviet Union was, and Russia is, quite reliable. As for eagerness -- I think that China is also going to use our uranium enrichment facilites along with its own. Iran is already cooperating with Russia on Bushehr, and our enrichment plants are a bit under-utilized now, so... why not?
I guess they only wanted to take their cooperation so far. The size of industrial concerns these days is such, that it is in theory possible to do all your business with one single supplier, one single contractor, etc. But people don't do it, they don't like to be overly reliant. Everyone likes to keep a diverse range of business partners, just in case.

I guess they only wanted to take their cooperation so far. The size of industrial concerns these days is such, that it is in theory possible to do all your business with one single supplier, one single contractor, etc. But people don't do it, they don't like to be overly reliant. Everyone likes to keep a diverse range of business partners, just in case.
The best thing (theoretically) would be for Iranians to diversify their enrichment between the EU, Russia and maybe someone else (I don't think that China has enough idle centrifuges, though). The US would calm down, Iran would get enough fuel for non-military nuclear industry.

The funniest thing is, the US was ready to sell a complete nuclear fuel cycle, enrichment and all, to Iran in the 1970s. But I gather that the Shah was going through budget then, and the deal didn't realize.

You'd be surprised what kind of stuff gets bundled into industrial contracts sometimes,....

Industrial contracts:p come on. Bomb designs don't get thrown in extra or slip in unnoticed (although that is what Iran is claiming - that they never asked for it)

The intent was definitely there.

You wouldn't buy a gun because a smuggler offers you one, do you (unless you want to have it)?

The best thing (theoretically) would be for Iranians to diversify their enrichment between the EU, Russia and maybe someone else (I don't think that China has enough idle centrifuges, though). The US would calm down, Iran would get enough fuel for non-military nuclear industry.

The funniest thing is, the US was ready to sell a complete nuclear fuel cycle, enrichment and all, to Iran in the 1970s. But I gather that the Shah was going through budget then, and the deal didn't realize.
The problem is, the US would prefer Iran did not have any indiginous nuclear technology at all. The European nuclear firms would be pressured into withdrawing from any negotiations they tried to conduct, by the US government via their national governments. Failure to comply would result in a loss of opportunities in the US market. Thus Iran's choice is limited to Russia.

Had the US sold the nculear fuel cycle to the Shah, their response to the 1979 Revolution would have been very severe indeed. Far more severe than paying Iraq to fight them for 8 years. We probably wouldn't be discussing Iran today.

You wouldn't buy a gun because a smuggler offers you one, do you (unless you want to have it)?
You do if you're actually buying stolen consumer electronics from a gangster and don't inspect the whole shipment for 'extras'.

The problem is, the US would prefer Iran did not have any indiginous nuclear technology at all. The European nuclear firms would be pressured into withdrawing from any negotiations they tried to conduct, by the US government via their national governments. Failure to comply would result in a loss of opportunities in the US market. Thus Iran's choice is limited to Russia.
Iran already has indigenous nuclear technology, the first research reactor was installed there in... the 1960s? Theoretically the US can accept this arrangement if presented by the EU and Russia... although the present US administration... erm... *goes silent*

Had the US sold the nculear fuel cycle to the Shah, their response to the 1979 Revolution would have been very severe indeed. Far more severe than paying Iraq to fight them for 8 years. We probably wouldn't be discussing Iran today.
Quite so.

'Cause having uranium is the same thing as using it to make nukes (or using nukes).

If we got rid of every country with nukes, we'd have to fight ourselves, France, Britain, Russia, China, N. Korea, and dozens of other countries.

Seriously.

You do if you're actually buying stolen consumer electronics from a gangster and don't inspect the whole shipment for 'extras'.
A violation of the NPT nonetheless, and a serious one.

Theoretically the US can accept this arrangement if presented by the EU and Russia... although the present US administration... erm... *goes silent*
Yeah, and their choice was probably waiting another decade for permission, or saying screw them, and doing it all themselves.

Regarding the plausibility of Iran accidentally purchasing nuclear weapon designs... remember, the whole technology transfer was illegal. A rogue element within the Pakistani nuclear programme basically sold materials that were not theirs to sell, on the black market. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't bother checking everything they were selling. I bet Iran is currently in possession of Pakistani nuclear weapons lab payroll records and pages of correspondence regarding the repair of the rec room coffee machine. :rolleyes:

A violation of the NPT nonetheless, and a serious one.
Well, an accidental violation. I suppose if you buy stolen goods, you are just asking to get implicated in all sorts of crimes you don't even know about. But there you go. I think they are innocent of the intent part, just not the possession.

Yeah, and their choice was probably waiting another decade for permission, or saying screw them, and doing it all themselves.

Regarding the plausibility of Iran accidentally purchasing nuclear weapon designs... remember, the whole technology transfer was illegal. A rogue element within the Pakistani nuclear programme basically sold materials that were not theirs to sell, on the black market. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't bother checking everything they were selling. I bet Iran is currently in possession of Pakistani nuclear weapons lab payroll records and pages of correspondence regarding the repair of the rec room coffee machine. :rolleyes:
It is OK for a signatory to the NPT to engage in building indigenous nuclear industry, as opposed to building the Big One...

I agree with your reasoning, although I gather that it would be the first ever case of inadvertent transfer of the nuclear weapon design. All other transfers (USSR-China, China-Pakistan, US-UK) were *very* intentional.

Well, an accidental violation. I suppose if you buy stolen goods, you are just asking to get implicated in all sorts of crimes you don't even know about. But there you go. I think they are innocent of the intent part, just not the possession.
My point is, the very existence of this nuclear deal is a violation of the treaty. The design part just makes it more grave.

My point is, the very existence of this nuclear deal is a violation of the treaty. The design part just makes it more grave.
But how severe a violation, and how grave?

Ultimately what we are dealing with, is a guy who knowingly bought stolen furniture, got raided by the police, and ended up looking bad because there were gun manuals and live ammunition down the back of a sofa.

Did he knowingly purchase stolen property? Yes.

Was he intending to home-build an unlicensed improvised firearm and go kill his neighbour with whom he has an unresolved long-running dispute over a garden hedge? WTF? :rolleyes:

Are we really going to go with the death penalty? How very civilised of us.

All other transfers (USSR-China, China-Pakistan, US-UK) were *very* intentional.

However, some of them (UK->Israel) were very covert, and it still remains somewhat unclear who exactly knew what was happening.

Who says Iran is linked to al-qaeda?


If you say the CIA I'll slap you with a trout.
They're probably not. However, they are sponsors and supporters of Hizbollah, at the very least.


Get it wrong and you've got an expensive dirty bomb and the world laughing.
I doubt very many of us would be laughing when said dirty bomb still kills twenty thousand Israelis and contaminates most of Tel Aviv.

You don't have to be using weapons-grade uranium for weapons...do you?
Theoretically, a fission weapons can use uranium with enrichment as low as about 25% -- and a radiological weapon ( a "dirty bomb") can use uranium of any enrichment level.

They're probably not. However, they are sponsors and supporters of Hizbollah, at the very least.
As are, it seems, many of the voters in Lebanon.

I doubt very many of us would be laughing when said dirty bomb still kills twenty thousand Israelis and contaminates most of Tel Aviv.
Difficult to conceive, I think. It's not even clear that Chernobyl killed that many people - and that was one huge dirty bomb.

Heard stories of this type before. It will be contamination from equipment bought from Pakistan. Iran does not have enough centrifuges to perform enrichment to weapons-grade, not even close, end of story.

Ok. I am an American. I don't have any idea what America's nuclear capabilities really are, nor do I want to know. But assuming you are not an Iranian government nuclear physicist, how the hell would you be able to make such a patent statement?

I doubt very many of us would be laughing when said dirty bomb still kills twenty thousand Israelis and contaminates most of Tel Aviv.

TRUTH. Israelis are killed every week in some suicide bombing or another and most of us would rather read Ann Landers. WE DON'T CARE.

As are, it seems, many of the voters in Lebanon.

Sadly.


Difficult to conceive, I think. It's not even clear that Chernobyl killed that many people - and that was one huge dirty bomb.
Chernobyl wasn't in the downtown of a million-plus person city.

Who says Iran is linked to al-qaeda?


If you say the CIA I'll slap you with a trout.
Al-qaeda does not exist and never has. (read this (http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/397/13821_AlQaeda.html))

Chernobyl wasn't in the downtown of a million-plus person city.

Actually, Chernobyll was sitting right next to a fairly heavily populated city. Not quite the million mark, but in the hundreds of thousands IIRC. And the cover ups by the Soviet Union compounded the problems faced. I think a dirty bomb in Israel might be worse, but not by much. At least as far as radiological concerns go.

Oh noes! A country that's been fairly non-violent for the last few years has a nuclear weapon!

It's not like they're surrounded by their enemies or anything!

Al-qaeda does not exist and never has. (read this (http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/397/13821_AlQaeda.html))

It depends how you define "Al-Qaeda" - many use the term as a convenient phrase used to describe a whole range of Islamic terrorist organisations with broadly similar aims and motivations. The problem with saying that "Al-Qaeda doesn't exist" is that you run the risk of minimalising the danger of Islamic terrorism - which obviously does exist, merely not as the monolithic entity that we are led to believe.

Iran has considerable links to a number of Iraqi Shiite militias and a fair few Palestinian terrorist organisations. Couple this with a nuclear weapons capacity and you're faced with a deeply undesirable prospect.

Al-qaeda does not exist and never has. (read this (http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/397/13821_AlQaeda.html))

You are using Pravda as a source?

You are using Pravda as a source?
What's wrong with Pravda?

Soviet Union is long gone you know.

What's wrong with Pravda?

Soviet Union is long gone you know.

Because they're full of shit. They're little better than the National Enquirer. Look OMG teh nazis had an a-bomb in 1945! (http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/14-05-2006/80253-Nazi-0) It's in "Pravda" which means it MUST be "true" OMG OMG! :rolleyes:

Ok. I am an American. I don't have any idea what America's nuclear capabilities really are, nor do I want to know. But assuming you are not an Iranian government nuclear physicist, how the hell would you be able to make such a patent statement?
Because it's been in the news before. Last year, I think.

It's in "Pravda" which means it MUST be "true" OMG OMG! :rolleyes:

Wow. I don't think I once alluded to that.

But well done on jumping the gun. :rolleyes:

Because they're full of shit. They're little better than the National Enquirer. Look OMG teh nazis had an a-bomb in 1945! (http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/14-05-2006/80253-Nazi-0)

Did you even read your own link?! Pravda doesn't say Hitler had an A-bomb. Its discussing a book that was released that claims the Nazis did.

It interviewed the author and aired his opinion. All it does it talk about how the author believes it.
Get over yourself.

...Rainer Carlsch Hitler's Bomb. According to Carlsch, the Nazi scientists conducted a secret nuclear test near Ordruff on March 3, 1945. The book argues that the Nazis detonated a bomb that contained up to 5 kilos of plutonium.

Is a newspaper now expected to criticaly analyse historical books and whether or not they may indeed be true or not? Pfft.

There was a saying in communist Russia...

"V Pravde netu Novostej, a v Novostyakh netu Pravdy."

"In Truth there is no News, and in News there is no Truth."

(Both were official newspapers)

Did you even read your own link?! Pravda doesn't say Hitler had an A-bomb. Its discussing a book that was released that claims the Nazis did.

It interviewed the author and aired his opinion. All it does it talk about how the author believes it.
Get over yourself.



Is a newspaper now expected to criticaly analyse historical books and whether or not they may indeed be true or not? Pfft.

Either I just lost any respect I had for you, or your sarcasm-fu is not sharp enough to cut through the ambiguity of the internet medium...

Either I just lost any respect I had for you, or your sarcasm-fu is not sharp enough to cut through the ambiguity of the internet medium...
I'll defend them on that link.

I don't actually like them or their style regardless, so if you want to criticise an agency, do so with a proper example
*shrugs*

Edit: Respect for me? Please. No one has respect for me, and thats the way I likes it.
(....and its probably the latter anyway.)

I'll defend them on that link.

I don't actually like them or their style regardless, so if you want to criticise an agency, do so with a proper example
*shrugs*

That was a fine example. the article was not a book review. It was in the science > discoveries and it was not titled (for example) "Book Claims Nazis had a-bomb in 1945," it was titled "Nazis had a-bomb in 1945."

And there's other shit I coulda cited too, like their opinion articles about how America is dying and it's all the fault of the Jewish Media but I didn't think it was necessary since I figured no one would claim with a straight face that Pravda is anything but pure bullshit.

That was a fine example. the article was not a book review. It was in the science > discoveries and it was not titled (for example) "Book Claims Nazis had a-bomb in 1945," it was titled "Nazis had a-bomb in 1945."

And there's other shit I coulda cited too, like their opinion articles about how America is dying and it's all the fault of the Jewish Media but I didn't think it was necessary since I figured no one would claim with a straight face that Pravda is anything but pure bullshit.

I'm not saying its not a 'weak' paper. The story to the right of it has the headline....
Estonian beavers dig traps to catch security guards

I mean, really....

I'm not defending it, bar the fact its as reliable as most other bullshitty agencies people get their news from.

So what about the title? Sky News had a title this evening 'Rapping Rabbi' about an Orthodox Jew who is a rapper.... he's not a Rabbi but it sounded better. What do you expect from lightweight agencies?

Its about as solid as Sky or the Sun IMO but people watch Sky and read the Sun too. Meh.

Whoa. You are discussing the reliability of a tabloid newspaper as a historical source? :eek:

Whoa. You are discussing the reliability of a tabloid newspaper as a historical source? :eek:
...which was my point in the first place.

The article reviewed a book and posted what the book argued. Nothing more.

IAEI says it cant confirm it and says its a trace amount.

It couldve been on equipment imported from pakistan where they have a running weapons program.

If it really is the smoking gun you guys make it out to be - the UN would have no problem passing a chapter 7 on Iran, which they still cant - not without China and Russia becoming fundamentalist geo-conservative adventurist over night. And the Iranian President actually the apointed head of state for the Ayatollah would have been fired for violating the old mans Fatwah or binding law against the development of nuclear weapons, yes its still against thier religion.

It being connected to a military run facility also counts for little in a state where almost everything of importance is guarded or run by the military. The military is probably the only institute capable of running something of that much expense and sensitivity safely.

What they released yesterday theyve known about for years and doesnt change a single thing.

IAEI says it cant confirm it and says its a trace amount.

It couldve been on equipment imported from pakistan where they have a running weapons program.

hmmm..since Pak sent some centrifuges to IAEA for "study" purposes (that's the official line, it was speculated that it was sent after massive pressure from US to corner Iran using the sample centrifuges)....it should not be that difficult to prove it, no?

hmmm..since Pak sent some centrifuges to IAEA for "study" purposes (that's the official line, it was speculated that it was sent after massive pressure from US to corner Iran using the sample centrifuges)....it should not be that difficult to prove it, no?

Yes, Pakistan has no intention of selling out its friends in Iran. They would not have sent anything terribly useful - or we would have the concrete smoking gun of a weapons program and the evedence of Iran lying would have been sent to Russia and China already allowing for cooperation on a Chapter 7 UN Resolution which is still not going to happen last time I checked.

Yes, Pakistan has no intention of selling out its friends in Iran.

Everybody has their price, especially in Pakistan.

They would not have sent anything terribly useful

How come? The centrifuges MUST have SOME trace, no?

I think the results will come out at the "right time" as deemed by the powers that be.

All other transfers (USSR-China, China-Pakistan, US-UK) were *very* intentional.

I dont think the US gave Britain nuclear technology. Britain developed it on its own (much of the initial research America built on during ww2 was stuff which Britain gave to them from British, French and Polish scientists I believe. The the Americans were so very kind as to cut Britain out a few years later. Britain, after the short term co-operation during world war two (and they only had data on some areas, hvaing only worked on certain areas of the technology, so not enough to build a bomb right away) had to develop the technology themselves, getting their own weapons in the 50s. Even today all the warheads are British, only the delivery systems being from America.

But I suppose people won't believe that Iran is making a nuke until downtown Tel Aviv is a smoking glass crater.

I'd also need an Iranian flag in the middle of the crater with a sign saying: 'pwned!'

That would convince me. :)

Everybody has their price, especially in Pakistan.



How come? The centrifuges MUST have SOME trace, no?

I think the results will come out at the "right time" as deemed by the powers that be.

Or maybe theyll just lie to us again when they think theyre better off invading Iran to secure thier oil situation.

We're really slow learners here in the US. :D

Or maybe theyll just lie to us again when they think theyre better off invading Iran to secure thier oil situation.

We're really slow learners here in the US. :D

Yea well Britain and France aren't to happy for they are the ones that introduced the UN resolution.

I dont think the US gave Britain nuclear technology. Britain developed it on its own (much of the initial research America built on during ww2 was stuff which Britain gave to them from British, French and Polish scientists I believe. The the Americans were so very kind as to cut Britain out a few years later. Britain, after the short term co-operation during world war two (and they only had data on some areas, hvaing only worked on certain areas of the technology, so not enough to build a bomb right away) had to develop the technology themselves, getting their own weapons in the 50s. Even today all the warheads are British, only the delivery systems being from America.
My statement, admittedly vague, referred to all kinds of nuclear weapon-related technology transfers and wider cooperation, for example the Polaris Sales Agreement of 1963 and the testing of British bombs in Nevada. The UK did not receive the blueprint for making a nuclear weapon from the US, that's for sure.

Who says Iran is linked to al-qaeda?


If you say the CIA I'll slap you with a trout.
I'd imagine Iran would probably use Hezbollah, although they might also consider Hamas to be a decent deliverer.

You'd be surprised what kind of stuff gets bundled into industrial contracts sometimes, and ends up sitting in a warehouse or on a shelf. It's like a "Do you want to go Large? 10c extra?" sort of thing. "Well seeing as you're buying our centrifuges and associated manuals and documentation, why not get this stack of fissile core drawings as well? 10% extra..." ... "Yeah, go on then."

Doesn't necessarily imply a high-level request. Could well be a purchase of opportunity by financial management. If that sounds crazy, remember, in a lot of places in the world, such discussions are run on a pretty informal footing.

Sorry for bringing this up. But I came upon another surprising :rolleyes: instance of "industrial contracts" where the Libyans asked the Pakees "ehhhhh.....so you are buying centrifuges for enrihing uranium....this is just the some associate manual and documention...you know the bueprint to make bombs...it is just 10% extra" and so the transfer took place....

I think this also does not necessarily imply a high-level request. It is fairly commonplace for middle-level clerks to deal with nuclear secrets from the black market.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008381
Not only had Libya developed highly compartmentalized chemical and nuclear programs that were often unknown even to the Libyans who worked at the facilities, they had already imported two types of centrifuges from the Khan network--aluminum P-1s, (for Pakistan-1), and 4,000 of the more advanced P-2s. By 1997, Libya had already gotten 20 preassembled P-1s from Khan and components for another 200. In 2000, it got two P-2 model centrifuges, which used stronger steel, and had ordered 10,000 more. Libya had also imported two tons of uranium hexafluoride to be fed into the centrifuges and enriched as bomb fuel. In fact, it had managed to acquire from the Khan network what it needed to produce a 10-kiloton bomb, or to make the components for one, as well as dozens of blueprints for producing and miniaturizing a warhead, usually the toughest step in producing an atomic weapon.

..
During its second trip in December, the team was taken to sites that U.S. intelligence had not previously spotted and was permitted to photograph and take notes on the astonishing blueprints that few weapons designers had ever seen outside declared nuclear states. The drawings were of a relatively old, crude, but workable design that Pakistan got from China in the early 1960s. The blueprint copies that Khan had provided, as a "sweetener," no less, with their Chinese scribbling still in the margins, had been kept in their original wrappings--a plastic bag from a Pakistani tailor's shop--another bonanza for Western intelligence.



Nothing to worry folks...even though we know that AQKhan supplied the same stuff to Iran, it is all some "inadverdent mistake" and I am sure the Iranians are innocent in this matter...somehow...and if we put our heads together we can find a way to blame all this on Bush.:cool: