Iranian Heavy Water Nuke Plant Goes Online Today

avtchillsboro writes "According to an article in the NYT, an Iranian heavy water nuke plant goes online today. From the article: 'An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the plant, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes. The announcement comes days before Thursday's U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment — which also can be used to create nuclear weapons — or face economic and political sanctions.'"

Comments

The problem is not the bomb itself

[mangu]

The real problem is that Iran is not letting international inspectors see their installations. Remember what happened to Iraq in a similar case?

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I think they're just goading the Israelis to take out the facility, gain more support in the Arab world, and rid themselves of the problem while they secretly create a more clandestine program.

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[Kadin2048]

The problem in this case is that unlike a few years back with Iraq, the Iranians have this time created such a well-timed diversion (Lebanon) that the Israelis aren't in much of a position for a repeat performance of 1981. Or at least, they're in a worse position. For them to destroy the plant in Iran would almost certainly guarantee that they'd receive the blame for providing the spark to reignite hostilities on the northern border, and I'm not sure if they have the stomach for that at the moment.

The situation in Iraq makes any US action that might be perceived as risking our troops a political impossibility; and the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese aren't interested in doing anything about Iran's nuclear ambitions in general, because they know they won't be the first targets of any weapons they produce.

Thus, the overall stage seems set for Tehran to continue as long and as far as they can: with Israel tied up because of Lebanon and the US pinned due to Iraq, there's no reason not to go for the bomb.

Unless there's a major shift in attitude and pressure, I think it's really only a matter of time before Iran goes nuclear; already a pariah state, they have little to lose and much to gain. And once they have it, it seems to be only a further interlude before it's used on the obvious target, Israel, whether directly or by proxy.

The real question is, what happens then?

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[Savage-Rabbit]

Don't underestimate Israel's ability to do what they feel is neccessary to keep themselves safe.

Don't under estimate the ability of the Iranians to defend them selves. I'm no fan of the Iranian regime but don't assume that just because they are Islamic fundamentalists they must also be idiots. These people have managed to keep US made F-14 jets in full use with spare parts made in Iran (or procured from corrupt sources in the US military) for over 20 years. They have even upgraded and re-manufactured significant amount of the military gear they got from the Americans prior to the revolution (and let's not forget all the toys they got from President Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal). The Iranian military leadership was trained US instructors some of whom also trained the Israelis. They have also forged some very cozy relationships with Russia and more importantly China who supplies them with high-tech weapons some of whom, ironically enough, incorporate technology that is Israeli in origin.

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[ezratrumpet]

I remember reading an account of some military manuever that concluded with, "And you know what? The Israelis got the blame for the whole thing."

If something happens to the Iranian facility, either the U.S. or Israel will be blamed, even if another country's ambassador throws a stomping fit in the middle of the UN General Assembly and screams, "We did too blow it up!"

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[Portal1]

Hi All,

Well i probably going to be getting a lot of flames on what i write next.

Iran did sign the non profiliation agreement.
However there is no international rule that forbids iran from developing a nuclear plant,
not even forbidding it to develop a nuclear bomb.

What is does forbid is to spread nuclear knowledge to other non nuclear countrys.

I do not agree on any nation on having a nuclear arsenal,
But by invading iraq, mr bush gave the ultimate reason for states like iran to have them.

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[ph1ll]

Am I the only Westerner who thinks that Iran getting nuclear weapons is no bad thing?

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is what prevented the Cold War from warming up. It might take the current crisis in the Middle East off the boil as well.

Consider this:

• They've already had the West topple their democratically elected government before. This was pure and simple an attempt by us to get our greedy mitts on their oil (google for Operation Ajax).
• The Iranians (perhaps rightly) fear unprovoked aggression from America. It's now clear that the claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction used in the current Iraq campaign were just propaganda to allow the invasion of an oil-rich nation. Why should Iran not think we want to do the same thing again?
• The US was sabre rattling against Iran by calling it part of the comically titled "Axis of Evil" even when the moderate Mohammad Khatami was president (and, yes, Iran is. at least nominally, a democracy...)
• All the horror expressed in the America media about oil-rich Iran's claimed civilian programme sounds somewhat hollow when their so-called fellow Axis-of-Evil partner North Korea has happily admitted to a military nuclear programme (total oil reserves of North Korea in millions of barrels: 0).
• Israel already has them (google for Mordechai Vanunu who served 18 years in an Israeli prison for leaking information about their nuclear programme to the British Press. Awfully long sentence if the programme didn't exist, don't you think...?) .

For this last reason, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's beligerent stance towards Israel is largely regarded as rhetoric. Afterall, Mutually Assured Destruction is, well, mutual.

I for one think Iran having nuclear weapons will make us stop taking ill-advised decisions when it comes to meddling in the affairs of small, oil-rich countries.

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[Schemat1c]

If it was up to you, you'd bring about a total collapse of US economy, you mean? Thats wishful thinking until we can achieve some sort of energy independence.

If the US economy is dependent on blowing up children in the middle east then I say yes bring on the collapse. Then maybe we could revitilize the midwest by growing corn or even better hemp for all our fuel needs. I'm tired of hearing how we need the middle east for our economy while I see daily pictures of blown apart innocents. It's just not worth the price. If we don't wake up and deal with this then it will eventually deal with us, simple karma.

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[meringuoid]

Saddam was selling oil way to cheap, so we didn't like him.

You grossly oversimplify; actually, the situation was a lot more complex than that. Saddam was selling oil way too cheap, in euros, to the French. So we didn't like him.

Re:The problem is not the bomb itself

[AvitarX]

Is this a joke?

I really can't tell. All I do know is that I have no ecpectation that the western world knows anything about the middle east (based on failure to discover 911 and the certain discovery of WMDs in Iraq).

I'm too nice a guy.

[PatTheGreat]

My naturally trusting personality leads me to the following theory:

The Iranians are indeed flying in the face of the UN by developing tech that could be used to develop nuclear weapons without letting the UN see it, just to piss 'em off.

However, they won't develop nuclear weapons, just so we'll all go "Oh. I suppose since they didn't develop nuclear weapons, we can trust them."

You see? We'll trust them! Then what? We'll have to invade!

Re:The IRANIANS created Lebanon?

[CRCulver]

It's possible-- hardly proven, but possible-- that Iran was in some way involved in the Hezbollah actions that spurred Israel into starting the brief Lebanon war.

It's totally proven. Iran openly admits that it provides Hezbollah with weapons. It's openly admitted that for over two decades. I agree with the rest of your post, that Iran didn't especially time anything, but Hezbollah is a wing of the Iranian administration.

Re:"peaceful energy needs"

[Lehk228]

this is clearly to meet energy needs, in particular the need unleash energy in israel on the megaton scale

Re:Dangerous but not deadly

[kwerle]

So huge, in fact, that you need something the size of a B29 in order to deliver it. We're talking several tons here.

We're past the age of the cruise missile. We know full well that any plane can be a delivery vehicle. I know too little of the local geography, flight paths, and etc - but exactly how long would it take to fly a 737 far enough into israeli space to make it worth detonating one of these nuclear devices? With a cruising speed around 500 knots ~550 mph.

Haifa looks to be about 20 miles south of lebanon. If my math is right, that's 3 minutes from border crossing to detonation - which isn't a lot of time, though it certainly is plenty enough to shoot down a plane if you have the stomache for it. I don't know how far out the airspace and waterspace rights/rules/whatever extend, but I'm *guessing* it is less than 20 miles.

Re:Interview with Iranian Nuclear Chief

[slew]

I'd like to hear someone justify the US having nuclear weapons, especially taking into account that they are the only country to have used them to attack another country...

Okay, I'll bite...

The reason the US has nuclear weapons is because the US developed them. The same is true with France, China, Russia, and the UK. Someone had to use the first, and that happened to be the US.

Since 5 countries had nuclear weapons when the NNPT was signed, it doesn't make much logical sense to have a treaty that purports to take away that capablility from a country. Just like you can't un-invent something and why would a country voluntarily give up something like that?

Seems to me this is sort of like the argument about the use of the various poison gasses after WWI. The french used it first (or was it the germans, I always forget that one), but after the war, there was a treaty that tried to ban poison gas, but of course none of the countries that knew how to make poison gas volunteered to destroy their stockpiles.

Ohhh, you mean justify why it is "fair" for the US to have nuclear weapons. It's a cruel world and life isn't fair sometimes. There's no "mommy" country to make the countries play fair after they've been bad (btw, the UN isn't a mommy, it's more like a blog where countries can go to diss on each other).

Re:Interview with Iranian Nuclear Chief

[CAIMLAS]

Which propaganda is that? That we need Iraq's oil?

Or the hard evidence propaganda of:
- Iran weapons being found in the posession of Hezbollah, in Iraq, and Afgahnistan
- Iran's continued claims directly to the West that they will a) destroy Israel and b) destroy the Great Satan (that's the US)
- continued evidence of Iranian troops themselves being directly involved with Hezbollah and in insurgent groups throughout Iraq.
- Iranian funding of numerous terrorist cells and organizations

No, seriously. I'm not being tongue in cheek here, I'm looking for a response. This isn't "government propaganda" - this is stuff which the media and hte administration has been slow to admit; it's not getting front-page attention, to say the least.

(As for Iraq, I'm personally of the opinion that it was indeed a lie/set of lies, but it was done because a sizeable land base is needed for a conflict with Iran - which the government knew Iran was moving towards even back then.)

Fission Bombs Simple; Fusion is Complex

[littlewink]

You're wrong about the designs. Any fissionable material can be used in the "gun" type of fission bomb, wherein two or more pieces of fissionable material are pushed together by an explosion. Hell, you can even do it by hand, as proven in some of the early accidents with nuclear materials. So fission bombs can be dirt simple. Fusion bombs OTOH are complex. See the Nuclear Weapon Archive for details (but remember: "Don't believe everything you read!").

Re:He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother

[Doc Ruby]

I'm fascinated by France's cyclic role developing Iran into such a major pain. They hid the Ayatollah Khomeini for decades, too. The Shah was an asshole, helped into keeping the throne by Teddy Roosevelt's son Kermit Roosevelt, who also had some heavy work in Central America for the CIA.

The lesson that should be painfully obvious to anyone looking is that the CIA, America's secret police, controls the profitable parts of the US government for dynasties of American industrialists. I just hope it's not too late to stop them from literally selling off the country to foreigners.

Iranian Threat to Western Society

[reporter]

A prominent journalist asks, "Should the UN negotiate more with Iran, or impose sanctions because of its failure to comply?" The answer to the question hinges on the following assertion.

ASSERTION: If the Iranians build nuclear weapons, then the Iranians will use them without reservation.

If the above assertion is false, then the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should proceed playing word games with the Iranians and allow them to continue using delaying tactics. Of course, the Iranian Muslims are offering false promises in order to buy the necessary time for building a nuclear bomb.

On the other hand, if the above assertion is true, then the Western nations (which includes Japan) must act immediately without waiting for the Chinese to manipulate the UNSC into playing more word games. One possibility is to arrange for unmarked German fighter-bombers to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities. This military action should be synchronized with the bombing of North-Korean nuclear facilities by unmarked Japanese fighter-bombers.

So, is the assertion true? The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the assertion is true.

How do people behave if they are genuinely committed to peace and economic development? Consider Vietnam. Washington dropped tons of agent orange on Vietnamese farmlands and forests. Today, thousands of Vietnamese are suffering and dying from this poisoning. Yet, the Vietnamese are not spending every waking moment in plotting how to kill Americans. The Vietnamese government spends most of its budget on economic development and is not attempting, in any way, to build a nuclear bomb.

Consider the Czech Republic. Czechoslovakia was under Russian/Soviet oppression for more than 40 years. Yet, today, the Czechs are not spending every waking moment in plotting how to kill Russians. The Czech government spends most of its budget on economic development and is not attempting, in any way, to build a nuclear bomb.

Now, look at Iran. The Iranians spend every waking moment in plotting how to kill Americans, Iraqis, and Israelis. The Iranians give millions of dollars to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. The Iranians spend millions of dollars on building a nuclear bomb.

Is Iran committed to peace and economic development? You make the call.

An even better question is "What is the fastest way to de-capitate the Iranian government and Iranian society?"

Re:Or maybe.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they though?

They are totally in their right by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich Uranium.

Why isn't someone bombing Israel for having nukes (course they'll never admit it) and not signing the NNP treaty?

There are even better than bullshit rumors that they've used micronukes in bali and against the former Lebanese president.

This will end badly for everyone involved, and that sucks.

Mr Galloway does go too far but

[einhverfr]

part of the problem is that Israel has never been *serious* about earning a sustainable peace. Sure after decades of war, there are now peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt and a sort of alliance with Turkey. However the fact remains that the large cause of the conflicts are almost always about nothing more than land and water.

Additionally you ahve to understand that while the vast majority of Israelis are reasonable folk and peaceloving, there are extremists (including terrorists) who feel that it is their sacred duty to create a greater Israel spanning from Sinai through Golan. These lands, in their view, must be conquered, depopulated, and resettled by Jews (a term not exactly equivalent to Israeli by modern demographic standards).

What Galloway fails to note is that Israel is an area, like Northern Ireland, where over six decades of conflict have created some really insane dynamics. Indeed I cannot think of a country whose political dynamics make less sense than modern Israel. After all, when a former Nazi sympathizer (who tried to build an alliance between a Zionist resistance group and the Nazis during WWII) can be serve a lengthy term as Foreign Minister and a short term as PM, the last place one would think this could happen would be Israel, and yet that it happened there in the 1980's with Shameer (Shameer's Nazi sympathies were well documented).

But the fact remains-- Israel is a military superpower in the region who is almost unquestioningly backed by the US, France, and other countries. Their alliance while it is their greatest strength is also their greatest weakness. For example, in the run-up to the Iraq war, Lebannon exacted some serious water rights concessions from Israel despite threats by Sharon to go to war.

Now, we are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we have many troops which are not committed to the field of battle, most of the active duty troops are committed in various strategic roles (such as South Korea) and are not readily available for redeployment. I do not think it is possible to invade Iran and win by any lasting measure. What was that B5 quote about the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots? At the same time there is the fear that if Iraq stabilizes, then the US might be free to attack Iran.

So what is Iran to do?

1) Destabilize Iraq-- keep us bogged down there.
2) Develop a deterrent nuclear capability capable of holding Israel hostage in the event of pending US military action.
3) Develop ties with terrorist organizations so that if balistic missiles fail to have deterrent capabilities, other deployment options exist.

Iran has seen deterrence work on the Korean penninsula. They know that their only way away to have power in the region is to threaten US allies with massive and illegal weapons.

Ahmedinejad is hardly mad any more than Bush is as dumb as he appears. He is playing a very sophisticated game and doing quite well, and politicians are never what they appear.

Re:Ok.....

[Doc Ruby]

Which part of "It's always been a bad idea to proliferate nukes in the Mideast" dont YOU understand?

Before Hitler rose to power in Germany, Bush Sr's father Prescott Bush funded Hitler to ensure his rise. And continued to fund Hitler even as those funds paid for bullets fired at American troops, until stopped for violating the "Trading With the Enemy" laws. Once the bullets stopped, Prescott Bush's boss Averill Harriman negotiated the deal for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, in return for which the CIA overthrew the democratically elected successor to the Shah, so the Shah would keep the AIOC deal. The Shah was such a "good customer" of the US that "we" set him up with a nuclear program under Richard Nixon. Whose staff included Dick Cheney, a frequent Director of corporations funded and directed by Harriman and Bush, even through the 1980s. Who has done everything he could to give Iran "reasons" to get nukes, while supplying them with Iran/Contra military parts and recently handing them Iraq.

So don't tell ME about crazy people with nukes. I've got the whole barrel of monkeys on my radar. And, through my taxes and against my votes, many of them on my payroll.