Slashdot Mirror
An Inside Look At Iran's Nuclear Program
NotBornYesterday writes "On April 8, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited his country's secretive nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz for a photo op. What came out of this visit is a series of photos which have caused a fair amount of interest among western scientists. Shown in the photos are not only some of the inner workings of the plant and current generation of enrichment centrifuges, but also key components to newer generations of more effective centrifuges. Analysts are 'intrigued' not only by the technical revelations in the pictures, but also because Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar accompanied Ahmadinejad through the facility."
Way before the invasion of iraq we heard alot of how bad iraq was with their WMD:s and their connections to terrorism. And now what? No WMD:s no connection what so ever to al'quaida and what is the answer now? It was to bring democracy to Iraq.
And now it's irans turn, well you know what; this is a war that america can't afford. The dollar isn't worth salt so just turn the fucking propaganda machine of again.
We have a choice:
Risk the death of 100,000 people and do nothing.
Ensure the death of 100,000 people and bomb Iran.
You morons!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Just a thought, you might want to ad government propaganda to the tag list below.
See this? It's the world's smallest violin, playing just for you. Feel special yet?
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Signatories to the NPT are allowed to enrich Uranium as part of a civilian program. Perhaps if Iran had not been the target of US sanctions since 1979 (when they overthrew the brutal western-backed Shah and his CIA-trained SAVAK secret police), they would be more trusting about getting their nuclear fuel from outside. As it is, they have a mentality of being as independent and self-sufficient as possible.
Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but the major nuclear powers are, since they have not disarmed and have no intention of doing so. In fact new nuclear weapons systems are being developed right now. Why then does the media not focus on the NPT violations of the big 5? Perhaps people feel the big 5 are so responsible that it's ok for them to posses them, but frankly the historical record does not back that up. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside, Richard Nixon is on tape suggesting a nuclear strike on North Vietnam and before the Iraq war, UK Minister of Defence Geoff Hoon threatened Iraq with a nuclear strike (crazy I know).
The big 5 want to maintain a permanent nuclear apartheid whereby they keep their weapons (and threaten others with them, explicitly or implicitly) while preventing any other country from developing them. It's not a sustainable situation. You can't wave your gun about and then expect everybody else to refrain from acquiring guns of their own. It is the major powers themselves that are putting us all in a huge amount of long term danger due to their failure to disarm. That should be the real focus of media attention.
If you seriously believe that Israel would use nukes in a first-strike scenario , you've been horribly mislead by propaganda. Get a grip. The anti-Israel propaganda that pervades Middle-Eastern life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic governments in Iran and Syria and to a lesser extent those of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
The anti-Israel position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.
Some of the sites are buried and hardened to the point that trying to destroy them with conventional weapons might not work. Planners have been drawing up plans to use B61-11s, nuclear bunker busters. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh had a source tell him "...whenever anybody tries to get it [the use of nuclear weapons] out they're shouted down.".
A groundburst is the most fallout-inducing thing you can do with a nuclear weapon. There are dozens of sites involved, all with people living downwind.
He wanted to make sure we knew that Iran's Defense Minister went on tour of the facility with Mahmoud.
More to the point, that's not even something that ought to raise suspicion. In a region where terrorism is a real, daily threat, you want the military to be looking after security issues at an enrichment plant even if it is only being used for civilian purposes - you want them to be making absolutely sure that the facility is not open to abuse by those who would use it for more nefarious purposes.
That's not to say this is evidence that the enrichment plant is not being used for military purposes, it's just that the presence of the Defence Minister is not evidence for or against.
Iran like any other signatory of the NPT has a right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. They also have a right to develop, purchase and sell said technology freely and without any hindrance as long as they abide by the NPT. Iran unlike other countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel (which are not signatories of the NPT) intends to use its nuclear technology for generating energy as a way to decrease dependence on oil exports (as any sane country should be doing now).
When other nuclear powers (lead by a country where its own president can't even pronounce the word nuclear properly) get in the way of this process it sends a clear message to other countries that are signatories of the NPT they it may not be as easy as they think to develop peaceful nuclear technologies within their own countries. As a result black-markets start popping up making ratifying the NPT all that more difficult.
If the US and UK just abide by the terms of the NPT then the majority of problems they are now seeing will all but disappear.
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
I wonder if you'd say the same thing if I killed (and raped, before AND after) your daughter and you have the choice of informing the police or staying silent.
... do you hide my crime ?
... because they can make bombs with it.
Remember, before you answer : violence only creates more violence. You obviously know the police will use violence against me.
So
Peace man. Where do you live ? Is your daughter pretty ?
(this post is fiction, obviously, and only meant to illustrate the utter stupidity of this fake "pacifism", the fake "salvation" that non-violence supposedly provides).
Violence against Iran may prove to be a VERY good idea, it may prove to be a very bad idea. We don't know.
One thing is for sure however, Iran is using heavy water reactors, less efficient and more complex than light-water reactors. They make this uneconomical decision for a reason
Do they want bombs for defense ? Why don't you answer this question for yourself. Is it reasonable to assume they need deterrence ? Or do they want to attack ? (little detail : like they've done before, with MASSIVE casualties, they lost 500.000 people, most of them children in an attempt to expand into Iraq)
The anti-Israel position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness. If you seriously believe that Iran would use nukes in a first-strike scenario , you've been horribly mislead by propaganda. Get a grip. The anti-Iran propaganda that pervades the American life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic government in United States.
The anti-Iran position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work with people who WANT TO DIE. Besides, it's easy to make such a substantial gamble with other people's lives.
The fundamentalists running Iraq have stated time and again that they wish to accelerate the return of the 12th Imam (the "hidden Imam") which will signal the end of the earth. This divine saviour ("Mahdi") will appear at the End of Days. Only after chaos and global war will the Mahdi lead Muslims to an era of universal peace.
In other words, the sooner they get on with global war, the sooner they can reach paradise. The Iranian government is trying to acquire the means to carry out this insane vision. They have stated clearly this is their intent, yet the Western world ignores them. Just as we Ignored the words and actions of Germany's socialists until it was too late.
Whistling past the graveyard, people.
We're geeks here. So let's compare their options. They don't just have "a" nuclear program. There are many nuclear programs a country can pursue.
...
Specifically they built heavy water reactors and built cascades of over 3000 centrifuges.
There are also simpler, more efficient "light water" reactors, requiring very little if any enrichment. They know this, and specifically chose against them
Why does one build heavy water reactors (and Ahmadinejad knows this, as he's a civil engineer), because you can build "heavy isotopes" with it. They want to use them to "cure aids" and stuff. Right.
But the part about heavy isotopes is true. Why do you want heavy isotopes ? Since these days we have a simple neutron-producing device, making small (okay... utterly tiny) amounts of medical isotopes is much simpler and much cheaper and flexible using alternative methods.
You want these reactors to produce large amounts of heavy isotopes. Which ones ? There's exactly one that's of any use : plutonium. There's exactly one thing those centrifuges produce : weapons grade purity uranium and plutonium. And there's one use for it : bombs.
Do they want bombs to avoid being nuked themselves ? Does Iran today need deterrence to avoid being bombed ?
There is only one conclusion with this course of action : they're making weapons, and they're making them because they want to attack (not necessarily with said nuclear weapons, but they want to attack, who and what is not clear, they want the bombs to prevent retaliation)
This is a little silly on the face of it. There is little doubt that Israel could obliterate them right back and that is BEFORE we chuck a MIRV or two in their general direction. Israel has reliable delivery systems and there is very little doubt they have nukes of their own. And more than one or two nukes. It's probably more like 30. Israel can annihilate the cities of any Middle Eastern state of their choosing and still have a stick to wave afterwards.
One Defense Intelligence Agency estimate puts the number of Israeli nukes at 65 to 85 weapons.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
If Iran were so foolish as to attempt to "obliterate" Israel, Iran would cease to exist within hours of the attempt.
Middle Eastern leaders talk of destroying Israel because it plays well to the masses and the Iranian leadership are crazy like foxes in this regard. These leaders themselves live comfortable privileged lives and will not act like the young suicide bombers they employ as cannon fodder. The mad-dog Arab who will do anything is a propaganda tool meant to scare the shit out of the West. And it works.
Have you seen the pictures? Are you a professional analyst? No. What makes you think these analysts are more correct than those analysts that were used to lie to us in 2002?
for sure? the main reason for a heavy water reactor is that it can run on natural uranium. It is one way to start a nuclear program when there is no enriched fuel. Sure it can do some neat tricks for bomb making, but also for research and industry. You seem to be confused like a few others here on history, Iraq invaded Iran to start the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq even used chemical weapons. Iran has invaded no one for centuries.
If you think no one would want to attack Iran you haven't been watching the joint sabre-rattling in the news from the US and Israel. Who did we attack, Iraq, the relatively stable country with no nuclear weapons, or North Korea, the ticking time bomb of regional destablization who already had them? Nuclear weapons seem like a fine deterrent again.
Security?
Yes, if I was Ahmadinejad I would be trying like hell to get me some deterrence to avoid being bombed. I mean imagine if you are Iran, look east, look west and then shit yourself. And our (USA) decision to *not* invade North Korea gave him what he could logically see as a possible solution. Did we force Iran's hand? I believe so, even if indirectly. (and Ahmadinejad knows this, as he's a civil engineer) I guess the old saying "MechE's make weapons, CivE's make targets" applies then?
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
dude, unclog your brain. It's heavy water reactors that can run on un-enriched fuel, they can even run on depleted uranium (= 0.7% u-235)
there are numerous useful isotopes for industry and medicine and research that can be produced by a heavy water reactor. do some research before spewing your ignorance all over the internet.
a heavy water reactor is one way to start a nuclear program without having a stock of enriched fuel on hand
and i will say it again. their nuclear program is most likely as they said, civilian. they are a oil/nat gas exporter that also use's it's own production for domestic use including making electricity. they are smart and know that as their domestic consumption increases their income decreases as there is less available to sell/export. so why not use nuclear power to satisfy their internal demand at least for natural gas there by increasing the amount for export and thus the money they will get. though the reason this get's the ire of this country is because the people they would be selling it too would not be us but china who can now most likely out bid us.
- You compare calling the police to violence, whereas normally, in a civilised country the expected outcome of a (successful) intervention of the Police, will finally end up in court in a fair trial, with the criminal being subject to what punition has been deemed relevant by the law (which law itself should preferably have been voted democratically by the population).
Pacifism is not about inaction. Pacifism is about trying to reach results while resorting to more modern and less barbaric means.
- You compare a situation where the horrible crime has been committed, with a situation where one might encounter a menace and is resorting preventively on violence. The more exact parallel would be beating the head of some random person into pulp, on the grounds that there's a doubt that maybe that random person could have planned to rape twice and murder your daughter.
- Why are you resorting to violence *for* in the place ? What was the goal of you action ? You wanted to make the world a better place ? A better place devoid of "Evil Guys" who might use nukes against you ? And what do you do against them ? Drop bombs on their country ? How is that different from being an Evil Guy ? If you resort to violence to solve your problem, you end up being not different from the guys themselves which cause said problems.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
What? Are you insane? With the US threatening them the way it is now? If they tore down the defensive perimeter and opened it up to any inspector the UN cared to send, the first thing the US (or Israel, or whoever else may have a bone to pick with Iran) would do is claim they're lying and drop bombs on it. Not because it's the right thing to do (at that point it would be pretty clear that it's the wrong thing to do) - simply because they can. Because nobody would stop them. Iran not defending that site now would be like the USA leaving critical infrastructure unprotected during the Cold War, only on a smaller scale.
Whether it's peaceful or not, Iran has every reason to defend that site, and the alarmist comments about the defense minister do nothing but cloude any real information about Iran's intentions.
It would be much easier to believe the nukes are only for deterrence, that the silly stories currently used to justify the nuclear program.
Iran backs a number of radical groups in the middle east, including Hezbollah and Hamas (we know this because both groups have used Iranian weapons), and probably Al Qaeda in Iraq. They have suggested that Israel be wiped off the map, and do not seem opposed to using nuclear weapons as a means to do so.
most worrisome is the fact that they are a wild card. What will they do with nuclear weapons? Pass them on to terrorists? Use them as deterrence? Push their will on the rest of the region, which is cowering in terror under the nuclear shadow? It is a reasonable assumption that the US will not use nuclear weapons except in retaliation. The same can be said for Russia, and even China. However, Iran is an unknown. In the best case, Iran having nukes will make them harder to work with, and will likely create a shelter for terrorist groups seeking to disrupt Iraq (as Iraq is also a shelter for terrorist groups seeking to disrupt Iran).
Qxe4
A good case for getting out of the middle east. Iran and all these other "bad guys" wouldn't give two shits of interest about us if we weren't always getting involved in their regional affairs.
Whenever one of these so-called "enemies" tries to resist our influence and encroachment, it is called "terrorism" and is used as an excuse to continue being involved and sacrificing ourselves.
The reality of this situation is:
1) Israel and the neo-conservative movement involves a lot of, ahem, Jewish people who root for their ethnic homeland
2) Commercial interests want to open new markets in places that traditionally resist western influence
3) Cheap access to oil to continue our materialistically consumptive culture
I don't think Israel should be eliminated, but it is a very natural reaction that people would begin to hate us when we take sides in their regional conflicts. This is the price we pay.
People in Saddam's own government believed he had WMD's.
US post-invasion spin. The only source the US had for its WMD claims came from a single souce called 'Curveball' - a man generally considered unreliable inside the US agencies, but, whom the Bush cabal latched onto as providing a trigger.
Why? Saddam wanted people to believe this. Most likely to keep Iran in check.
Were that true, Saddam wouldn't have released a mountain of documentation indicating they had no active WMD programs in late 2002 and offered UN weapons inspectors complete access to anywhere they wanted - including palaces.
True, they were concerned about the composition of the inspection team, but, that's understandable given their previous experiences with the now hopelessly discredited UNSCOM (who directed non-WMD intelligence reports to the US military) and their concerns of evidence being planted to justify the invasion that happened later anyway.
You need to face facts: The Iraq misadventure was a transparent resource war. Without resources, the US would have been about as interested in Iraq as they are in Zimbabwe.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
It's hard to argue that nuking Japan was substantially different from the previous fire bombing campaigns. That aside, I think one of the best pieces of evidence that the US substantially values human life is that in the wars the US has fought since WWII massive strategic air campaigns weren't used.
If you compare US tactics during WWII to those employed more recently, its hard to escape the conclusion that the US currently substantially values the lives of foreigners. If the US didn't, Iraq would be strewn with land-mines, Baghdad and other cities, would be burned out shells and the response to mortar attacks on US bases would be to counter-battery the area with massive heavy artillery and bombing.
And who owned that land before that?
And before that?
How many different groups people have actually owned that land in the last, say, 3000 years?
How will you decide who is the actual owner of that land?
From a semi-unrelated earlier
post about Iraq :
Before that (Iraq vs. US), the USA was arming Iraq to fight Iran. Some time prior to that, Iraq went through numerous coups, a British invasion, two monarchies and a partridge in a pear tree. Prior to the pear tree, Iraq was owned by the British. Actually, two distinct regions (Basra and Baghdad) were owned by the British. To save on ink, when drawing maps, they called the group "Iraq". Before that was the Ottoman Empire, who - ultimately - can be blamed quite reasonably for most of the current blood-feuds in Europe and the Middle East. Before that were the Mongols, who can be blamed for just about everything else. Before that, the Islamic forces of Khalid ibn al-Walid decimated the area and took it out of Persian control, who in turn invaded before they even became Persians. Nothing like getting ahead of themselves! Some time before that, Alexander the Great made a royal mess of the area. Before that, there were endless wars between the Assyrians, the Akkadians, the Sumerians (who were largely obliterated), assorted other nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes, and whatever culture lived there first of which there is almost no trace left.
In other words, there is no meaningful "first", unless you want to go back around 10,000 years. Almost everything that happened after that point was in direct retribution to what had happened before. That's one reason it will take a lot of effort to calm the region down - ten thousand years is a long time to build up grdudges and resentments -- and don't think a single one of them has been forgotten.
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
Oh please could you and everyone like you and the speaker finally get it through your thick skulls that the Iranian theocracy DON'T WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY!
Yes I shouted, on purpose, because anyone minimally observant should have gotten this crucial fact by now. And yes there's only one possible rational reason why they wouldn't want to.
And there's also only one reason why they get away with it: people like you (and there are billions like you). Do you realize that this is why it's going to end in violence? It is because the Iranian "leaders" have been provided the opportunity to void any and all peaceful resolutions by the collective ignorance you represent.
Please change yourself.
Yeah, I agree. If we had actually been supporting democracy and human-rights for the last 50 years instead of any government (no matter how evil) who was anti-communism, then we would have been a lot better off. Here's to the future and hopes that we've learned from our past mistakes.
Qxe4