Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Creeping Closer To Nuclear Capability  
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Reading the attached article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, I couldn't help thinking how long this game has been going on:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tation-with-West-over-uranium.html

Mixed messages, a hardline message for the domestic audience and a little "concession" for the international community - not enough to actually mean anything, but enough to create confusion as to its intentions, or better still, to divide allies.

Were we not in pretty much the same position this time last year, still discussing sanctions (not all agreeing) - and this despite the knowledge that Iran had a hidden nuclear research facility near Qom?

It must be evident to most that Iran is engaged in a cat and mouse game; much of last year was spent negotiating a plan to transfer nuclear fuel abroad for refinement, something which Iran managed to drag out for a long time, in the full knowledge that it was acting in bad faith, and even today, as comments from its FM show, that act is continuing. The difference between now and 2009 is, of course, that Iran has made a lot more progress - and will continue to push inexorably towards the target of nuclear weapons.

Can there really be any justification for doubt about this? Would any country risk the sanctions that Iran is risking, if it were for civilian use only (something which the international community is prepared to help it to achieve)?

The clock is ticking down on this one. The international community may have its own timetable for dealing with this - and I'm sure, Iran has its own plan to continue obfuscating. However, I strongly believe that the clock that is going to determine this is situated in Tel Aviv ...

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
Can there really be any justification for doubt about this? Would any country risk the sanctions that Iran is risking, if it were for civilian use only (something which the international community is prepared to help it to achieve)?

Perhaps not if you can tell us all what they are going to to with 20 or 40% enriched U. Marginally more radioactive paperweights?


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
Perhaps not if you can tell us all what they are going to to with 20 or 40% enriched U. Marginally more radioactive paperweights?


Where is it all leading though. Today 20/40% and the odd "paperweight", tomorrow is perhaps another story ???



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Nuclear weapon technology is pushing 70 years old. You cannot stop it just because you think you're entitled to it, as some sort of arbitrator of people's need to have something. If anything under the Bush years it taught every world leader a lesson that if you do not have nukes you are able to be invaded and overthrown by the USA when it's whims change. Whereas if you do have nukes, ala North Korea, the USA and friends are impotent in their flaccid response.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
Can there really be any justification for doubt about this? Would any country risk the sanctions that Iran is risking, if it were for civilian use only (something which the international community is prepared to help it to achieve)?

That's the same flawed logic that the US used to invade Iraq regarding "WMDs". Even completely law abiding citizens can and are opposed in many instances to government installed cameras on every corner, government snooping, and other such activities. All too often the same justification is used of, "well if you have nothing to hide or not doing anything wrong, why wouldn't you favor this"?


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 2):
Where is it all leading though. Today 20/40% and the odd "paperweight", tomorrow is perhaps another story ???

It is supposed to be 20% the news tells me. Thing is IIRC, it is a lot more difficult to go from 20% to 40% than from 2% to 20%. Where is Connies when we need him, what do you use 20% enrichment for? Commercial LWRs they will say. Then again, they could be planning to make anti-tank shells out of the depleted feedstock. Now if that is what they wanted, it would be funny!


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 3):
All too often the same justification is used of, "well if you have nothing to hide or not doing anything wrong, why wouldn't you favor this"?

Just a small exercise in tit-for-tat logic: do people run from a traffic stop because they don't like the cops' uniform??

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 3):
Whereas if you do have nukes, ala North Korea, the USA and friends are impotent in their flaccid response.

Hyperbole aside, regional dynamics are a critical factor in any useful foreign policy analysis. North Korea is hardly a state that possesses nukes with a delivery system worth fearing. Far more importantly, they have virtually all the artillery they've ever produced aimed at Seoul, a city of 20+ million including its exurbs. That might explain what you term a "flaccid" response - which to date has been more successful than not.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

Are we to believe Ahmadinejad, simply because he states it is 20%?

Iran may not have achieved anywhere near this level of capability, or, she may have already progressed way beyond this degree of enrichment. Whatever Ahmadinejad's says or suggests, he's certainly not to be trusted.

The question, it would seem to me, is not one of a nation's right to develop nuclear technology, but whether the world is prepared to stand by and abide the development of a nuclear programme by a nation who's President has stated that 'Israel should be wiped off the map'. Whether this was a statement purely intended for domestic consumption or not, it's a worrying declaration of intent.

Quoting Ahmadinejad:

'Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.'

Nice. Responsible. Mature. Non-inflammatory.

Just about the worst scenario imaginable would be Iran launching a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv. But we don't need to imagine that such an attack would take the form of a conventional western nuclear missile, despite Iran's recent advances on that front. You could certainly make a nasty mess with a dirty, low technology bomb, or a bomb strapped to some plutonium waste from your civilian reactor couldn't you. That's where suggestions of 20% enrichment being a long way from the requisite 90% needed for an atomic bomb start to look less relevant.

Should the world choose not to act to impede Iran's progress, I fear that Israel will not stand idle and she does have the capacity to strike first with a nuclear weapon. Mind you, we've stood by and ignored the fact that Israel has covertly developed its own capability haven't we - no doubt a significant motivating factor for Iran.

I once thought that Israel would only ever use a nuclear weapon as a last resort. After her recently demonstrated inability to react in proportion to perceived threats, I'm not so sure.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
It is supposed to be 20% the news tells me. Thing is IIRC, it is a lot more difficult to go from 20% to 40% than from 2% to 20%. Where is Connies when we need him, what do you use 20% enrichment for? Commercial LWRs they will say. Then again, they could be planning to make anti-tank shells out of the depleted feedstock. Now if that is what they wanted, it would be funny!

Actually you could make a nuke with it. It's a myth that you need to get to 93%. Enriching from 20 -> 40% is about as hard as from 0.27% - >20%.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1720 times:

Blix on Iraq and lessons for Iran at:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2814997.htm

Transcript should be there in about 12 hours.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Actually you could make a nuke with it. It's a myth that you need to get to 93%. Enriching from 20 -> 40% is about as hard as from 0.27% - >20%.

Quick techie questions:
- What is the reason that they need to get to a certain % of refinement (be it 93 or whatever)? Is this something to do with the ability of the uranium to react in the desired way?
- What is the level of refinement targeted by civilian nuclear programmes (and does it vary from country to country)?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1652 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 9):
Quick techie questions:
- What is the reason that they need to get to a certain % of refinement (be it 93 or whatever)? Is this something to do with the ability of the uranium to react in the desired way?
- What is the level of refinement targeted by civilian nuclear programmes (and does it vary from country to country)?

There's no real hard and fast limit. Bar talk I've been involved in centred around 17%. You need to have enough U235 to catch the fast neutrons, to generate more fast neutrons, to catch more, etc. 'Natural' uranium, mostly U238, isn't fissile, and will really only absorb thermal and epi-thermal neutrons (much slower and less energetic), which makes them good breeders of plutonium.

Most pressurised water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs) tend to use fuel that's enriched to within a range of around 3.5-5%. Depends on the design. Canadian pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) use natural uranium and moderate the neutron energies with the heavy water.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offline76794p From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

If they are making U235 then they are making a bomb/ missile as that the only thing that U235 is used for is nuclear weapons.


There's always money IN the banana stand.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

Somewhere down the road Iran or us will have to take measures. It's just a matter of time.That talking did wonders didn't it?

User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

According to a report just published by the Associated Press, "Iranian nuclear technicians set dozens of centrifuges spinning Tuesday to begin enriching uranium stocks to a significantly higher level, prompting President Barack Obama to warn of a "significant regime of sanctions." Iran's acceleration in its enrichment program was a defiant step that puts weapons-grade uranium in closer reach, should Tehran choose to go after the bomb. It was also another in a series of mixed messages that appeared calculated to boost Iran's leverage in negotiations with world powers on limiting its nuclear program."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_re_us/iran_nuclear_53

Ahmadinejad said just a few days ago that Iran was going to ship Iran's stockpiled uranium to Russia and/or France for processing into fuel rods to power a research reactor. Liar!



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 13):
Ahmadinejad said just a few days ago that Iran was going to ship Iran's stockpiled uranium to Russia and/or France for processing into fuel rods to power a research reactor. Liar!

Did you really believe otherwise ? apparently so !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 12):
That talking did wonders didn't it?

There's no reason to expect good results from any regime collapsing onto itself. The fact that there are now 76 year-old Iranian men with advanced prostate cancer slated to be executed for protesting says everything about how desperate these crazy theocrats are to hold onto power.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1542 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
There's no real hard and fast limit. Bar talk I've been involved in centred around 17%. You need to have enough U235 to catch the fast neutrons, to generate more fast neutrons, to catch more, etc. 'Natural' uranium, mostly U238, isn't fissile, and will really only absorb thermal and epi-thermal neutrons (much slower and less energetic), which makes them good breeders of plutonium.

So, if he is looking for refinement to 20%, isn't it pretty close to a concession that he wants more than is necessary for civilian power?

Quoting 76794p (Reply 11):
If they are making U235 then they are making a bomb/ missile as that the only thing that U235 is used for is nuclear weapons.

Do we know this for certain?

Today, President Obama has offered Iran a further concession in relation to nuclear energy for medical purposes (treatment of certain cancers); while I can understand it on humanitarian grounds, the danger with any further concessions is that the Iranians will only drag it out, which is really all they want to do and it appears that at this stage, that's all they need and concessions just play into their hands.

The thing is that when B.O, came into office, I felt confident that there was a new hand on the tiller (I still am), but I think it has to be accepted now that concessions or talks only serve to give them an excuse to spin things out; it is time to stop talking and lay down the law. Sanctions will hopefully have the desired effect, but at the end of the day, the decision on that (whether or not they should be given a chance) will not be taken in Washington, Brussels or London, but in Tel Aviv ...


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13197 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

We all know sanctions on Iran are useless and have unintended conquences. China and Russia will both want too many consessions on diplomacy, trade or finances to go along with us. If we cut off certain trade, it could cause a reaction of cutting oil production in Iran which can mean the price going to well over $100/bbl with it's crippling affects on the economy of the world already in a weak position.

The leadership of Iran wants revenge on the 'west' for out interference in their country and region (including as to Israel), their government (supporting the Shah). They want to be the leading country of the Islamic/Middle Eastern world. They know they have us literally over the (oil) barrel. They know to have even a crude nuke bomb will make the 'equal' to other major countries, that we have to give in to their demands for higher prices for oil and leave them alone to let them run their country as they see fit without western interference.

The real issue we need to absolutly worry about is that Israel will bomb the nuke facilites of Iran in the next year without the approval of the USA. What if that makes that region of Iran like Chernobal? What massive revenge against the west will the Islamic/Middle Eastern World do? It might really create a unity in the Arab/Islamic world to destroy Israel in bloody war. I know I would want NO support of Israel by the USA if that occurs as we all know we and Europe would be the next target of terror and probably raise oil prices to $200/bbl + with it an economic Depression that would be worse than the 1930's.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1511 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 17):
leave them alone to let them run their country as they see fit without western interference.

Do you think they have the right to exist without western influence or do you feel that America and the west have a right to make Iran do certain things?


User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1296 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1501 times:

Quoting 76794p (Reply 11):
If they are making U235 then they are making a bomb/ missile as that the only thing that U235 is used for is nuclear weapons.

Not true, as connies4ever has said it is also necessary in commercial reactors, albeit at a much lower enrichment.



You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Quoting 76794p (Reply 11):
If they are making U235 then they are making a bomb/ missile as that the only thing that U235 is used for is nuclear weapons.

This is a really poor statement. U235 is used at a 3.5-5% enrichment level as fuel in power reactors. At high enrichment levels (90+%) it is also often used in research reactors to produce medical isotopes used in many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 16):
So, if he is looking for refinement to 20%, isn't it pretty close to a concession that he wants more than is necessary for civilian power?

See 2nd part of above, but I would say it's a longshot. I think he wants us to at least think he's building a bomb.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
USA Put Iraq Closer To Iran. posted Sun Nov 6 2005 22:17:12 by Bofredrik
Western Hemisphere Closer To Continental War? posted Sun Mar 2 2008 15:46:13 by Derico
Iran Supplying Arms To Taliban posted Thu Jun 7 2007 01:56:15 by UH60FtRucker
Venezuela Moves 1 Step Closer To Communism posted Mon Mar 26 2007 22:10:44 by AirTran737
Chavez Closer To Creating Socialist State. posted Tue Jan 9 2007 02:00:37 by AndesSMF
Iran Blocks Access To YouTube/Amazon.com & More posted Wed Dec 6 2006 16:18:35 by OU812
Getting Closer To The Cosmic Connection To Climate posted Thu Oct 5 2006 15:53:43 by AirPacific747
Iran Tells Canada To Mind It's Own Business posted Tue May 24 2005 04:00:44 by Caribb
How Should We Respond To Nuclear Terrorism? posted Sat Feb 12 2005 22:03:09 by DL021
Iran Already Seeking To Break Agreement posted Wed Nov 24 2004 16:00:53 by Dl021