futurepilot16
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 am

Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:14 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_sc/ml_iran_nuclear

According to News today, Iran announced that they are planning to build 10 New nuclear facilities. This coming after they were asked to stop work on a Nuclear facility that is currently being built.

Any thoughts?

Just as a side note, these facilities are said to be uranium enrichment plants.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
 
User avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2696
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:31 pm



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter):

Any thoughts?

Israel gets the:

Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:51 pm



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter):
these facilities are said to be uranium enrichment plants

I get the feeling that the information about Iranian nuclear facilities has about the same quality as that about Iraq WMD. A grain of truth somewhere, but what is it and where is it? Wonder if Curveball is still gainfully "employed"?

We need a certain Canadian a.net member to work out what they might be doing with some hundreds of tonnes of uranium enriched probably to reactor grade, but probably no further. Then again, it could be just a press release to irritate you know who.

Then again, someone will probably remember that Iran could be helpful in solving problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan. Hmmmm.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:15 am

The UN has already stated that all their efforts have been in vein. Unless a coup topples the Iranian regime, the only other alternative is military action.

Quoting JetsGo (Reply 1):

No, Israel should focus on defensive operations. They'll have their hands full with Iran's proxy goons (ie. Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah) when the shooting starts.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
futurepilot16
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:42 am



Quoting TheCol (Reply 3):
The UN has already stated that all their efforts have been in vein. Unless a coup topples the Iranian regime, the only other alternative is military action.

As KC135 said (before the original thread was deleted), it just makes more targets for B2's to take out. But I just get the feeling that Iran will stay defiant till the end. i don't really see the point of military action as of yet, hopefully they can work this out.
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:31 am

Nice to see that two disastrous wars have not dented the appetites for more.

Don't you guys know when you are having your beards pulled? Why 10 plants, probably to make targeting close to impossible, although it will a long day before there really are 10 of anything.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:04 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 2):



Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):

Maybe we should go with what we know first. Since Iran has active nuclear facilities, and that they just attempted to arm their proxy forces, containment should be an immediate option on the table. I doubt anybody wants Iran to start exporting nuclear material anytime soon.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:42 am



Quoting TheCol (Reply 6):
I doubt anybody wants Iran to start exporting nuclear material anytime soon.

What sort of materials do you have in mind? Are you suggesting that Hez wishes to build a nuclear power station? Or are we to be treated to another version of the terrors of a dirty bomb?

Wiki has it quite succinctly:
The term dirty bomb refers to a speculative radiological weapon which combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. Though an RDD would be designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, a bomb that uses conventional explosives would likely have more immediate lethal effect than the radioactive material. At levels created from most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for one year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high", but not fatal.[1] Recent analysis of the Chernobyl disaster fallout confirms this, showing that the effect on many people in the surrounding area, although not those in close proximity, was almost negligible.[2]

Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[3] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage.


Not of course the Cheney version but, well let us not let reality stand in the way of a good scare campaign.

There is no evidence that I know of that Iran has gone beyond reactor grade enrichment. Do you know more? Do share.

I am guessing the answer to "do you know when you are having your beards pulled" is "Certainly not, we are too busy pulling them ourselves".
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4550
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:59 am

Iran leadership is playing a very dangerous game, that could be the last one they play.

I hope caution prevails and they back down.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:34 pm



Quoting Cpd (Reply 9):
Iran leadership is playing a very dangerous game

Probably, but which game did you have in mind?

For starters they do not seem to be in breach of the NPT

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2008/01/iran-and-the-un.html
Iran, the NPT and the UN Security Council

We often hear from certain elements that Iran had "violated the NPT" by not reporting the importation of centrifuges components. This is of course nonsense, because it confuses a breach safeguards agreements for failure to report otherwise legal activities (a relatively common occurance) with a violation of the NPT.

I think this bit of expert testimony presented to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the British Parliament should clarify this point, yet again:

17. In the list of behaviours, Iran's failure to report to the IAEA in a timely manner its enrichment, processing and reprocessing activities using nuclear material, in the 1980s and 1990s, and the way Iran has acquired centrifuge technology through non-state procurement networks for almost twenty years, has added to the suspicions and provided circumstantial evidence to those states who have been accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons. The technological options that would be available to Iran to use the civilian nuclear capability for use in a military programme are as follow. First, Iran could master the enrichment and other related nuclear technologies for the current overt civilian enrichment programme and build a parallel covert programme to enrich uranium for military use. Second, Iran would have the right under Article X.1of the NPT to withdraw from the treaty after providing three months notice for such a withdrawal, and then to convert its civilian enrichment facilities, which has been legitimately developed under Article IV of the NPT, to a military one. Arguably, such an option is currently available to a number of other non-nuclear weapon states such as Brazil, Germany, Japan and Netherlands.

18. However, the above suspicions and circumstantial evidence of the type argued by some states against Iran, do not fall under the international legal obligations that Iran has signed in the 1970 and 1974 in respects of the NPT and its associated IAEA safeguards measures. Under the terms of the NPT, like the other non-nuclear weapon states, Iran has to fulfil two fundamental obligations. The first obligation relates to Article II of the NPT, which requires from the non-nuclear weapon states not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons. The second obligation relates to Article III of the NPT, which requires from the non-nuclear weapon states to accept safeguards, implemented by the IAEA, to prevent the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to weapons.

19. There has never been a specific enforcement mechanism in relation to implementation of Article II of the NPT obligations.


Rather amusingly Iran accuses the US of breaching the NPT.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...4127&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
The agency obtained four documents prepared for the meeting by Iran which all point to the fact that Teheran is trying hard to deflect attention from its nuclear program by blaming the United States for breaching the NPT because of discriminating policies in favor of its allies.

Here is a comment on the nature of some journalism relating to the issue

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...9/09/iran-nuclear-metro-journalism

Really? Iran? Defiant on nuclear weapons? The Iranian regime is proudly, publicly and defiantly committed only to nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. You could argue -- without a shred of evidence -- that the Iranians are secretly building a nuclear bomb, and should not therefore be trusted with a uranium enrichment programme, but you can't then pretend that they would be bragging about it at the United Nations. The reality is that as long ago as 2003 the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaimed in a fatwa that "the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam" and that "the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons".

In the penultimate paragraph of the article, Radnedge chooses flatly to contradict his own inflammatory claim from the opening paragraph by actually quoting from the official Iranian statement at the UN yesterday: "Our commitment to non-proliferation remains intact."

Which is it, Aidan? Is (non-nuclear) Iran committed to "non-proliferation", or is it in "defiance"?


So that is all very clear.
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:11 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
Probably, but which game did you have in mind?

For starters they do not seem to be in breach of the NPT

Oh, I'm sure breaking some arbitrary paper rule that won't be enforced anyhow really has the them scared. They laugh at the NPT, as with anyone who tells them they can't do it.

Ultimately, it won't be diplomacy that stops them.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:02 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):

The research in that article is widely disputed. The overall scope of the gradual health effects, lethal or not, is not completely understood.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):
What sort of materials do you have in mind?

Any nuclear materials, development information, and conventional weapons.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):
Are you suggesting that Hez wishes to build a nuclear power
station?

I hear that Syria seems to have an interest in nuclear R&D.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:18 am



Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
Ultimately, it won't be diplomacy that stops them.

Stops them from what? However irritating Ahmad and his bosses are, can you not see that dancing around on the thin ice of very little evidence leaves you open to making a similar gross error that has cost you about 1 to 3 trillion dollars in Iraq? Some say you cannot afford a health system, odd how you CAN afford to try for an even more expensive war than the last two.

I dislike the regime in Iran, but I try to let rationality rule over outright ravings that have little or no backing in fact. Iran will never build these 10 facilities, it just wants you to think they will.

Shot down any more Airbuses lately?
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9258
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:00 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):

Stops them from what? However irritating Ahmad and his bosses are, can you not see that dancing around on the thin ice of very little evidence leaves you open to making a similar gross error that has cost you about 1 to 3 trillion dollars in Iraq? Some say you cannot afford a health system, odd how you CAN afford to try for an even more expensive war than the last two.

Except a war against Iran would not mean an invasion like in Iraq, but more like a bombardement of the nuclear facilities, which is not nearly as expensive.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):

Shot down any more Airbuses lately?

Taken any more tourists as hostages claiming they are spies lately?

[Edited 2009-12-01 04:15:43]
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:03 pm



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 14):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):

Shot down any more Airbuses lately?

Taken any more tourists as hostages claiming they are spies lately?

Yes they just took another ?15 I think. You see so is yer mother is not really a way to progress.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 14):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):

Stops them from what? However irritating Ahmad and his bosses are, can you not see that dancing around on the thin ice of very little evidence leaves you open to making a similar gross error that has cost you about 1 to 3 trillion dollars in Iraq? Some say you cannot afford a health system, odd how you CAN afford to try for an even more expensive war than the last two.

Except a war against Iran would not mean an invasion like in Iraq, but more like a bombardement of the nuclear facilities, which is not nearly as expensive.

Oh wow, how wrong is that. If the Iranians have not bomb proofed their installations by now, they are stupid as well as mad. It is one thing to think they are mad, but rather dumb to assume they are also stupid. So bombing them will just make the Iranians decide they really do need nuclear weapons and not seriously inconvenience the current programs, whatever they are, the worst problems would be loss of power supplies. Thinking bombing would be effective is about as sensible as thinking the Iraqis would welcome US troops with garlands of flowers.

On the other side, let us see what the costs would be.

1. Direct removal of 5.4% of world oil production.

2. Removal of another 15 to 20% of supply as the Straits of Hormuz are closed.

3. Crude oil at about 200 to 300 barrel.

4. Attacks on whoever bombs the nuclear facilities.

Iran would have much of its transport crippled, but so would the US and the Iranian regime would become more popular while the US regime would get itself close to a rebellion.

The Iranian regime thrives on outside stress and the US is vulnerable to outside stress.

In summary, "not as expensive"? Porbably true because likely much, much more expensive. And that does not count the disaster when US troops in Iraq are caught in the uprising of Shia militias there and problems in W Afghanistan.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:32 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
The reality is that as long ago as 2003 the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaimed in a fatwa that "the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam" and that "the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons".

Your posts are always interesting but you lost me on inclusion of this quote. Khamenei has shown time and again that tenets of Islam are only adhered to when they suit the purposes of the theocratic state. Murder in the streets of neighbors and fellow citizens by the government would certainly also seem to be forbidden under Islam - so these words and other claims should mean absolutely nothing to any astute observer.

In short, that statement, ostensibly, is a bald-faced lie.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
On the other side, let us see what the costs would be.

1. Direct removal of 5.4% of world oil production.

2. Removal of another 15 to 20% of supply as the Straits of Hormuz are closed.

3. Crude oil at about 200 to 300 barrel.

4. Attacks on whoever bombs the nuclear facilities.

This is undeniably of paramount concern. One would expect active contingency preparations among the other gulf states that both a) sell to the US, Asia, and western Europe and b) dislike Iran and any portent of disruption on the Straits to protect their interests, primarily that of a stability without any wild swings due to Iran falling off market radar. Your points are correct, but don't think KSA and others won't be consulted with prior.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9258
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:39 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
Yes they just took another ?15 I think. You see so is yer mother is not really a way to progress.

???

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
Oh wow, how wrong is that. If the Iranians have not bomb proofed their installations by now, they are stupid as well as mad.

Obviously they haven't when some of them can be seen from space  Wink

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
On the other side, let us see what the costs would be.

Homemade statistics are always a great tool to get your point across.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
The Iranian regime thrives on outside stress and the US is vulnerable to outside stress.

If you think UN sanctions is a way of 'thriving' then sure.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
In summary, "not as expensive"? Porbably true because likely much, much more expensive.

I disagree. Better find some better sources than little statistics of yours.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:03 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 16):
In short, that statement, ostensibly, is a bald-faced lie.

Well it might well be, but it is just possible that is what Khameini actually thought. You are certainly right that the tenets of Islam have been butchered as badly as his people were. Iran lost so many of its best and brightest at the time of his accession. I often wonder what happened to two Iranian friends I had when working in Kansas in 1977 who were violently anti Shah but could not believe that the alternatives had their drawbacks too!!

It remains a possibility that they do not intend to develop nuclear weapons. I think that they could have developed them long before now had they really been intent on that course. Believing him is certainly a risk, but so is assuming that the statement about nukes was also a lie. This is because the costs of preventing Iran from taking that course will not be small. It seems reasonable to think that one thing the Iranians have worked out is that they are not likely to be a nuclear target before they themselves have nukes, but if they were to develop their own nukes, all the rules of MAD would apply. Except that this time they would be inviting US, Russian and Chinese retaliation.

So you are right to point out that the Ayatollah had a strange view of the tenets of Islam, but that view is likely to have been tempered in relation to nukes by an understanding of the MAD doctrine.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 17):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
In summary, "not as expensive"? Probably true because likely much, much more expensive.

I disagree. Better find some better sources than little statistics of yours.

You don't like BP stats, complain to them.

Oil hit USD145 in part at the thought of an attack on Iran, you doubt it would go to 200 on the actuality?

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 17):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
The Iranian regime thrives on outside stress and the US is vulnerable to outside stress.

If you think UN sanctions is a way of 'thriving' then sure.

Maybe you do not understand the way in which a regime that is basically very (VERY) unpopular (that of Iran) can use external threats to its own benefit. To that extent they thrive, although their populations may suffer. We know from the recent elections that they are hardly a representative democracy, so there is no point in assuming the rep dem rules apply. They do not.

By contrast a regime like that of Obama which is basically popular, will suffer from stress generated externally. It might be contrary to what you might hope, but that is the reality. Threatening an unpopular regime is one way to make it persist.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9258
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:07 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
You don't like BP stats, complain to them.

Oil hit USD145 in part at the thought of an attack on Iran, you doubt it would go to 200 on the actuality?

I don't know. You might be right, but compared to a nuclear bomb hitting Israel or parts of Europe, it is probably unfortunately the better choice.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Maybe you do not understand the way in which a regime that is basically very (VERY) unpopular (that of Iran)

Yes I know this. It seems very unpopular in the cities of Iran, but on the countryside, I think they actually support the regime.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
By contrast a regime like that of Obama which is basically popular, will suffer from stress generated externally. It might be contrary to what you might hope, but that is the reality. Threatening an unpopular regime is one way to make it persist.

Yes that might be true, but a regime like the current one is very unpredictable if they get their hands on nuclear bombs I would imagine.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:25 pm



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 19):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
By contrast a regime like that of Obama which is basically popular, will suffer from stress generated externally. It might be contrary to what you might hope, but that is the reality. Threatening an unpopular regime is one way to make it persist.

Yes that might be true, but a regime like the current one is very unpredictable if they get their hands on nuclear bombs I would imagine.

We can certainly agree that the current regime is unpredictable. But they likely have a basic understanding that if they use a nuclear weapon, they will get a large number posted through their front doors by return. While the hyperbole about turning Iran into a glass surfaced parking lot is over the top, I think they well understand that would be a disaster from which they will not emerge.

In this respect they might just be more reasonable than some of the Christian movements who may think this would bring on the rapture.

It is a general worry about the extent (or rather the lack of it) to which the leadership of Iran are in touch with the real world. That is one reason why engagement with Iran is a far safer course, but following on Aaron's comments, their overall lack of rationality makes such engagement difficult.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9258
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:33 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):
We can certainly agree that the current regime is unpredictable. But they likely have a basic understanding that if they use a nuclear weapon, they will get a large number posted through their front doors by return.

Do you really think the West would nuke them back? I am not so sure actually. If it kills a lot of civilians I doubt there would be enough support for such an action. You might be right though.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:42 pm



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 21):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):
We can certainly agree that the current regime is unpredictable. But they likely have a basic understanding that if they use a nuclear weapon, they will get a large number posted through their front doors by return.

Do you really think the West would nuke them back? I am not so sure actually. If it kills a lot of civilians I doubt there would be enough support for such an action. You might be right though.

The chances of them not are very small. Not sure how the discussions would go, but somewhere someone would say, "Well if we don't use them now, when WILL we use them?"

And Iran must expect that to happen. If not, why does the west, Russia and China maintain such large inventories. Iran would in some respects be the perfect target (as would be the UK) not too big and not too small. China would be least happy as that is where the fallout would go first.

But if you think MAD would not apply to Iran, I would like to know why you think that???? I cannot see why, but if there is a reason, that would change my view. If you assume MAD does apply, even development and certainly use of nukes by Iran is very problematical - for THEM that is!!! I mean both Qom and Tehran would be excellent targets. The mountains would even tend to contain the blasts.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9258
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:08 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
"Well if we don't use them now, when WILL we use them?"

haha, that doesn't sound like a reasonable argument. A better one would be: "If we don't act hard now, they will do it again and again"

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
But if you think MAD would not apply to Iran

I don't know what you mean by 'MAD'.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:35 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Threatening an unpopular regime is one way to make it persist.

Cuba being one of the best, almost at-home examples for Washington to consider. Castro would have been turfed 40 years ago if the US had just taken a rational approach to his revolution -- perhaps by grovelling a little over their long-standing support for Batista and his mafia-mad henchmen and promising to make life easier, not more difficult, for the average Cuban. Castro might have even been someone they could have worked with. Huge lost opportunity there.

Here we are 50 years later, and little has changed in the State Department's approach to foreign policy, be it Cuba or Iran. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results?

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 23):
I don't know what you mean by 'MAD'.

Mutually assured destruction. Anyone who believes that the US would hold back in the event of an Iran-launched nuclear strike against anyone, particularly Israel, doesn't fully grasp the hawk mentality that still grips Washington whenever it believes someone else is getting uppity. 'Smite them' would be the operative foreign policy; questions to be asked later after the smoke clears.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9258
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:53 pm



Quoting Arrow (Reply 24):
y

Okay thank you for the explanation.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
But if you think MAD would not apply to Iran, I would like to know why you think that?

To answer your question then, as I said, I am not sure, I don't claim that I know what the US would do, but I would just imagine that it would be a very unpopular decision among many people if there will be a lot of civilian casualties.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:24 pm



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 23):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
But if you think MAD would not apply to Iran

I don't know what you mean by 'MAD'.

Arrow has covered it. One could add, that the MAD doctrine probably stopped Russia and the US bombing each other during the cold war. Assuming you believe in MAD, it has a pretty good record. I don't like MAD, but I sure believe it works.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 24):
Here we are 50 years later, and little has changed in the State Department's approach to foreign policy, be it Cuba or Iran. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results?

Too bloody right. I never quite understand how the US policies are so unchanged with the various administrations. I understand this trend for the UK with their more entrenched senior public service, but you would think the US would change more, rather than less as seems the case.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 25):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
But if you think MAD would not apply to Iran, I would like to know why you think that?

To answer your question then, as I said, I am not sure, I don't claim that I know what the US would do, but I would just imagine that it would be a very unpopular decision among many people if there will be a lot of civilian casualties.

Maybe not relevant, but I well remember the last time nukes were used. And it was a very popular move - at the time!

I can remember trying to read my fathers newspaper about the dropping of the bomb (IIRC I think it was published before the second one was dropped) as we drove across the railway in Silecroft, just next to the Miner's Arms. Not even sure what they called the bomb in those first press releases, but I got a fairly good explanation of what it was all about, due to my father being a physics teacher. However, I think he had to do a bit of catching up but he seemed to know roughly what had happened, which was a bit more than most at the time. I imagine use of nukes against Iran would get about the same support at first as the invasion of Iraq did. The second thoughts would come later. And twenty years later there would be talk of war crimes trials. But not at the time.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:39 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 2):

I get the feeling that the information about Iranian nuclear facilities has about the same quality as that about Iraq WMD. A grain of truth somewhere, but what is it and where is it? Wonder if Curveball is still gainfully "employed"?

We need a certain Canadian a.net member to work out what they might be doing with some hundreds of tonnes of uranium enriched probably to reactor grade, but probably no further. Then again, it could be just a press release to irritate you know who.

Then again, someone will probably remember that Iran could be helpful in solving problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan. Hmmmm.

Alan, Alan. You're trying to get me in trouble. Have been away attending a funeral for a close friend, so just now catching up.

I agree that the quality of intelligence is probably not great, but likely a little better than Iraq.
But I will try to offer a few points:

-- Iran possibly has some hundreds of tonnes of uranium _ore_ (U3O8 is the molecular form, usually referred to as yellowcake due to its' colour);
-- enriching this through centrifuges or any other process (gaseous diffusion or electromagnetic separation come to mind) is a pretty time- and energy-consuming process;
-- 100 tonnes of U3O8 could yield about 400 lbs of pure U235 (U235 is about 0.27% of uranium ore)
-- 400 lbs of U235 could be fashioned into about 6 Hiroshima-type weapons (these were very crude); using more modern implosion-style designs probably you're looking at 30-40 weapons anyway;

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 4):

As KC135 said (before the original thread was deleted), it just makes more targets for B2's to take out. But I just get the feeling that Iran will stay defiant till the end. i don't really see the point of military action as of yet, hopefully they can work this out.

B-2 action may be in the future, but I sure hope not. I am assuming that any action would necessarily employ the new bunker buster version of the MOAB. Apparently it can carve through about 60 ft of concrete. Impressive.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Don't you guys know when you are having your beards pulled? Why 10 plants, probably to make targeting close to impossible, although it will a long day before there really are 10 of anything.

Quite. Conjure up a bogeyman to scare the bejeesus out of the West. Look, India and Pakistan are mortal enemies, have now fought what? Four wars including the whole independence madness -- neither side comes out good on that. And so now both are nuclear powers. And are learning to live with it. Staring down the barrel of a nuclear rifle is I think a very sobering thing. The US & Russia did it. India & Pakistan seem to have done it. I think Israel & Iran will accomodate to it. The Ayatollahs on the grand council are pretty conservative guys who do not wish to see their Islamic creation reduced to ash.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 12):
The research in that article is widely disputed. The overall scope of the gradual health effects, lethal or not, is not completely understood.


w.r.t. 'dirty bombs' and radiation effects, these are fairly overstated. Within 'the business' (nuclear power and research) I can't recall a single self-respecting scientist who actually believes in LNT (Linear No-Threshold theory of radiation damage) and accepts what ICRP (International Committee on Radiological Protection, part of IAEA) puts forth as standards. If we could wiggle out of these standards and adopt ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) standards, the industry in Canada alone would save 00's of millions.

Dirty bombs would however cause a lot of economic damage due to their inherent terror aspect. People fear radiation (unreasonably, I think) because they can't see it, can't smell it, can't hear it. A little education would go a long way. But it's not PC.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
On the other side, let us see what the costs would be.

1. Direct removal of 5.4% of world oil production.

2. Removal of another 15 to 20% of supply as the Straits of Hormuz are closed.

3. Crude oil at about 200 to 300 barrel.

4. Attacks on whoever bombs the nuclear facilities.

Agree across the board Alan. The economic costs would be huge. The Iranians are not Arabs, and actually are not that popular in the Arab world, but they are fellow Muslims, and THAT is paramount.

Uranium enrichment in and of itself is NOT evidence of a weapons program. I have said before and repeat now, if you want to control your own nuclear power program, either you go the CANDU route (which uses unenriched uranium) or you build enrichment capability so that you can generate your own 3.5-4.5%-enriched fuel for PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors). Which are exactly what Iran has purchased from Russia and are being finalised at Bushehr. Unless Iran is Ok with buying fuel from Russia ad nauseum into the future, indigenous enrichment capability is a must.

One thing I'd like to point out is that I actually have been in Iran, and have worked with ex-Iranians here in Canada. They are not crazy (either here or there). They want better for their kids just like we do. Much of what the government, and particularly Mr. A, says. is usually dismissed as propaganda, and usually intended to deflect public attention away from the appalling state of the economy (thanks to Mr. A). Don't forget that there have been at least 2 assassination attempts on him in the past 3 or so years. He's not universally popular.

There is an enormous drug problem amongst young people in Iran -- it's estimated that of those under 30, 1/3 are regular users of 'recreational' drugs like ecstasy, coke, raw opium, heroin, and on. They have nothing to do, nowhere to go, unless chaperoned. The mullahs want it that way, but it goes against human nature. Let's face it, if you're hot for someone, do you want their uncle with you going to a movie ? These people more and more are moving to the opposition side to Ahmedinajad.

Ultimately Iran will emerge from this theocracy and take its' place amongst the rest of the world. Give it a little time.

I expect there will be flames. Bring it on.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:51 am



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 28):
Alan, Alan. You're trying to get me in trouble.

Sorry to hear the reason for the delay in your reply, but yes I was doing my best to summon you out of the ether. But not to get you into trouble. Just the hope that a little sanity might help keep us all out of trouble we really do not need to have.

And thanks for the information - sorely needed from someone who actually knows about this stuff for a living!!

Your experience with Iranians matches mine from the oil industry, although I have not been over there. Interestingly one of the group that visited here was a woman. So they do not manage to keep them down completely.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 28):
The mullahs want it that way, but it goes against human nature. Let's face it, if you're hot for someone, do you want their uncle with you going to a movie ? These people more and more are moving to the opposition side to Ahmedinajad.

Indeed, but an attack would make their opposition less likely to succeed.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 28):
-- Iran possibly has some hundreds of tonnes of uranium _ore_ (U3O8 is the molecular form, usually referred to as yellowcake due to its' colour);
-- enriching this through centrifuges or any other process (gaseous diffusion or electromagnetic separation come to mind) is a pretty time- and energy-consuming process;
-- 100 tonnes of U3O8 could yield about 400 lbs of pure U235 (U235 is about 0.27% of uranium ore)

Keep this in clipboard, you will probably need it again and again.  bigthumbsup 
 
lxa333
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:35 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:12 am

Obama is as weak as the average health of people over 100. and thats very weak. He keeps on getting played as a fool, Netanyahu made him look like the president of Mozambique when even Hillary greeted Netanyahu gracefully with respect to the situation in Israel.

This guy can't multitask at all, concentrating on one bill at a time...

This is coming from a moderate...this guy in the white house is a joke...the savior my a**....
SWISSAIR-Worlds most refreshing airline
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:34 am



Quoting Lxa333 (Reply 30):
He keeps on getting played as a fool, Netanyahu made him look like the president of Mozambique when even Hillary greeted Netanyahu gracefully with respect to the situation in Israel.

Whatever that tirade might mean, what exactly does it have to do with Iran and 10 nuclear facilities?

Quoting Lxa333 (Reply 30):
This is coming from a moderate.

A moderate "what", one is tempted to ask??????!

Your views do not seem to be shared in Haaretz at

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132178.html

But blaming the current deadlock on Obama is unfair, and attempts to dictate terms for American participation are impertinent.
With all the problems he is facing, perhaps Obama should not have even involved himself in the Mideast dispute. Instead, he quickly took take advantage of the momentum created by his great popularity. He honestly believed that both sides wanted to ensure their children a better future, not at the expense of those living on the other side of the fence. Perhaps he hoped that the Israelis would not quickly forget that the eight years of George W. Bush's support brought the end of the dispute no closer.

.....
Making out that Obama is "bad for Israel" may have helped Netanyahu mobilize some support, but in the long term a responsible Israeli leadership should try to keep the president's status from eroding and take advantage of his efforts to improve relations with the Islamic world, instead of jealously measuring who is getting more attention. There's no sense in trying to extort declarations of love from an administration that speaks in terms of interests. It makes sense to try to speak its language. But it would be even more helpful to admit that Obama is neither the problem nor the solution, not until at least one of the sides takes responsibility for establishing a dialogue with the other, not with Washington.


Might have been written just for you???
 
futurepilot16
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:46 am



Quoting Lxa333 (Reply 30):
Obama is as weak

So because he doesn't believe in bombing Iran into oblivion (even though I do) he is weak? What exactly do you mean with the terminology "Weak"
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am



Quoting Arrow (Reply 24):

Iran isn't Cuba. We are dealing with a state that is funding, arming, and enabling proxy groups to subvert democracy throughout the region.

In any case, what do you propose as an alternative approach?

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 28):
-- 100 tonnes of U3O8 could yield about 400 lbs of pure U235 (U235 is about 0.27% of uranium ore)
-- 400 lbs of U235 could be fashioned into about 6 Hiroshima-type weapons (these were very crude); using more modern implosion-style designs probably you're looking at 30-40 weapons anyway;

Very insightful, I appreciate you taking the time to comment on this. If you don't mind, I have a couple of questions as well.

Is is possible for Iran to produce U235 without the IAEA knowing about it?
If they do produce U235, is there any legitimate use for it?
Could they export or sell it to others?

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 28):
w.r.t. 'dirty bombs' and radiation effects, these are fairly overstated. Within 'the business' (nuclear power and research) I can't recall a single self-respecting scientist who actually believes in LNT (Linear No-Threshold theory of radiation damage) and accepts what ICRP (International Committee on Radiological Protection, part of IAEA) puts forth as standards. If we could wiggle out of these standards and adopt ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) standards, the industry in Canada alone would save 00's of millions.

So the risks of non-fatal health problems would be minimal?
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:20 pm



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 28):
Look, india and Pakistan are mortal enemies, have now fought what? Four wars including the whole independence madness -- neither side comes out good on that. And so now both are nuclear powers. And are learning to live with it. Staring down the barrel of a nuclear rifle is I think a very sobering thing. The US & Russia did it. india & Pakistan seem to have done it.

One of the primary reasons why the subcontinental nuclear war is farfetched is the lack of *mutual* threat perception. India simply does not consider them a major strategic threat, but rather, a nuisance. China, to us, is far more dangerous.

The nature of the relationship is such that Pakistan wants Indian territory (Kashmir), not the other way around. Every conflict therefore started as an attempt by them to grab the land, and ended with them trying not to be overwhelmed. Their nukes are a backstop to prevent catastrophic defeat, borne out of the trauma of having been ruthlessly ripped apart in 1971.

India, on the other hand, essentially ignores Pakistan unless they act up. Our strategic weapons program focuses on the ICBM and SSBNs as a deterrent to the People's Republic of China, not the short-range missiles or air-dropped weapons needed to handle Pakistan. China, on the other hand, primarily focuses on the US, not India.

That is the nature of Asian nuclear stability - three countries that don't consider one another a primary mutual threat. On the other hand, Israel and Iran have the potential to do that, and therefore the potential for a rapid escalation of temperature in the middle east is much greater.
 
kaitak
Posts: 8937
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:26 pm

More light shining from Planet Ahmedinejad:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091202/tts-uk-iran-nuclear-ca02f96.html

Mr. A. is now saying that as well as building more nuclear facilities, he wants to refine uranium to 20% and I read in this article (and I'm no expert, so I'll accept what they say) that this is "90% of the way to 90%", in technical terms.

This is out of his own mouth, mark you ... He, Mr. Rational, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran is saying this openly.

With every time he opens his mouth, I say - on the one hand, he marches his country further towards a fairly comprehensive bombing by Israel, on another, that he displays his open contempt towards the international efforts to reach a consensus and on the third, that he simply does not get that the international diplomatic efforts to get him to reach a deal is all that stands between Iran and disaster*. At what stage will the mullahs recognise that all of their billions of spending and resources on nuclear facilities will come to nothing and with each week, the pretence of "peaceful" aims becomes less and less credible and those who were (maybe even still are) trying to keep Iran in negotiations are recognising that they have been played for schmucks.

At this moment, I can only imagine that F-15, F-16s and other combat aircraft at Hatzerim, Sde-Dov, Ramat David and other bases across Israel are just waiting for the green light ...

I suspect they won't have long to wait.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:53 pm



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 35):
so I'll accept what they say) that this is "90% of the way to 90%", in technical terms.

I know where you got your 90% of the way, but it is more rubbish. It is 22.2% of the way if enrichment work was linear, which IIRC it is not. So it is much less than even the 20% of the way. The odd thing is that apparently they cannot fabricate the fuel rods they say they wish to make, but then again, the rest of the article has major inaccuracies, so perhaps they can do that.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 35):
With every time he opens his mouth, I say - on the one hand, he marches his country further towards a fairly comprehensive bombing by Israel, on another, that he displays his open contempt towards the international efforts to reach a consensus and on the third, that he simply does not get that the international diplomatic efforts to get him to reach a deal is all that stands between Iran and disaster*. At what stage will the mullahs recognise that all of their billions of spending and resources on nuclear facilities will come to nothing and with each week, the pretence of "peaceful" aims becomes less and less credible and those who were (maybe even still are) trying to keep Iran in negotiations are recognising that they have been played for schmucks.

Partly true, but the reverse also applies. Getting a deal is what also stands between the rest of the world and its own several disasters. This is critical for us not only for Iran.

A post attack Iran would be a far more dangerous place for us all and it is odds on that it would be determined (perhaps more determined) to become a nuclear power. At present it would be possible for the rationalists to point to the dangers that having nukes could pose.

If Israel attacks, for no good reason as the Iranians would say, the more rational will have no say at all. There is no hope for Israel (or the US) to occupy Iran, so it would be best to try to get on with it. Mr Ahmad would like a bit more adversity, Israel and the US would not. Come to think of it, probably Bibi needs a bit of adversity too, so that little element should be factored into calculations. Bit of a chancer Mr Bibi.

Now tell me who is truly the more crazy. Close contest but the winner is .............. And Obama runs a poor third in the ME Crazy Stakes, the only handicap race run for 11 year olds.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 33):
Is is possible for Iran to produce U235 without the IAEA knowing about it?
If they do produce U235, is there any legitimate use for it?
Could they export or sell it to others?

I was hoping Connies would return. Still do hope he will give you the right answer to this.

Yes they could produce it without anyone knowing, the US did for quite a while, well the Brits - and the Russians come to that - knew!!

Legit use. Well paper weigthts come to mind, U235 is not all that radioactive. Aside from that fission bombs are the main use!!! Its half life is 703,800,000 years so it is a bit more radioactive than the potassium in the pink granite on your kitchen sink, but not much more. The metal is toxic and should not be ingested. Makes quite a nice yellow glaze on pottery.

"Exporting" or "selling" was half of what the Iraq war was about - not that Saddam ever had any or would have sold it to OBL who he hated more carefully than GWB did.

AFAI can tell, the main purpose of producing U235 is to irriatate Irael and through Israel to get the attention of the US, much the way N Korea has used plutonium. He had figured that the west likes having its beards pulled, so he is obliging. Ignore him, it will be terrible for his ego and for his survivability. He is about as popular as a pork chop in a synagogue, but attacking Ahmad, is just the thing he needs for his own political survival.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:32 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 36):
AFAI can tell, the main purpose of producing U235 is to irriatate Irael and through Israel to get the attention of the US, much the way N Korea has used plutonium.

That's possible. Iran, however, currently supports terrorist organizations. The last thing we want is Iran doing it totally unchecked.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 36):
"Exporting" or "selling" was half of what the Iraq war was about - not that Saddam ever had any or would have sold it to OBL who he hated more carefully than GWB did.

Yes, but it's obvious that Iran is already in the export business. It's possible that weapons grade material could also end up being exported.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:21 am



Quoting TheCol (Reply 37):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 36):
"Exporting" or "selling" was half of what the Iraq war was about - not that Saddam ever had any or would have sold it to OBL who he hated more carefully than GWB did.

Yes, but it's obvious that Iran is already in the export business. It's possible that weapons grade material could also end up being exported.

Who knows what they think, although if we had not been irritating them for more than 40 years we might know a bit more.

However, if I were them, and I had prepared some weapons grade U235, the last thing I would do is export it. They may be mad but as I keep saying they are not all that stupid. They would have watched all the exports of US weapons to the Mujahudeen in the 80s and noticed the blowback coming to visit peril on the exporters. That should be enough to dissuade any sort of free exporting of U235. If the purchaser is thought to be crazy enough to use it on some agreed target, who is to say they would not be crazy enough to use it on the exporter for a target that was NOT agreed if they had a bit of "lovers tiff"!!!!

And they stil are a huge distance from making weapons grade U235 and until they get there, power reactors or paper weights.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:43 pm



Quoting TheCol (Reply 33):
Is is possible for Iran to produce U235 without the IAEA knowing about it?
If they do produce U235, is there any legitimate use for it?
Could they export or sell it to others?

Yes
Yes fuel for the 2 Pressurized Water Reactors being completed at Bushehr
Yes, unlikely though (my thought anyway)
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:51 pm

I should clarify re producing U235 -- most people tend to think of gaseous diffusion (Oak Ridge)-type plants. Electromagnetic separation is more compact but less efficient. Thermal diffusion is less efficient but has a fairly small 'footprint', so fairly easy to hide and relatively little investment.

The Japanese were actually trying out the process in August 1945.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
radiopolitic
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:00 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:08 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 16):
tenets of Islam are only adhered to when they suit the purposes of the theocratic state

Heh. This reminds me when they ruled that caviar was halal just to make money off of it.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:51 pm

A little food for thought to possibly revive this thread:

An important Iranian nuclear scientist, Shahran Amiri, seems to have gone 'off the radar' after Hajj this year. The Iranian state organs are jumping up and down that the US has kidnapped him. Now we know that America never kidnaps anyone, but someone that may be of value to them, perhaps induced to defect ? State Department spokesman I saw was carefully stepping around the question posed, and the wording might be construed as 'I can't say yes we have him, but you all know what's real'.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...ugherty.iran.missing.scientist.cnn

This may help explain why suddenly the West new about these ten supposedly secret facilities.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities

Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:15 pm



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 40):
This may help explain why suddenly the West new about these ten supposedly secret facilities.

Hmmm, mind you CNN must think Maggie T is still PM in the UK, unless there is another Iron Lady I have missed. Funny how plus ca change mais plus ca meme chose - that could have been Condominium Rice Pudding making the Sec St speech.

If they needed a defector to tell them about the Qom site and that is the site being figured on the sat pics, they need a few better photinterp folk at Langley!!! Ho hum. They are up to something. But is "they" the US, the Iranians or the Israelis or all three???

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: drew777 and 20 guests