Slashdot Mirror
Iran To 'Remove Fuel' From Bushehr Nuclear Plant
mangu writes "Iran said on Saturday it is removing the fuel from the reactor of a Russian-built nuclear power plant, a move seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program. The plant was first launched by the shah using contractors from Siemens. It was shelved after the Islamic revolution and it lay unfinished through the 1980s. In the early 1990s, Iran sought help for the project after being turned away by Siemens over nuclear proliferation concerns. In 1994, Russia agreed to complete the plant and provide the fuel, with the supply deal committing Iran to returning the spent fuel. The plant has faced hiccups even after its physical launch, with officials blaming the delays in generating electricity on a range of factors, including Bushehr's 'severe weather.' But they deny it was hit by the malicious Stuxent computer worm which struck industrial computers in Iran, although they acknowledge that the personal computers of some personnel at Bushehr were infected with it."
going to divert the fuel to their nuclear weapons program
Shah Nukem Forever
Stuxnet: An object lesson on why you shouldn't run critical infrastructure on Windows.
REMOVE KEBAB
israel needs to dismantle them and provide a reason for iran to not want them. They cannot have it both ways
nukes provided the armageddon shield. the 'intranets' might do the same.
Awful, rambling summary. Why is removing fuel from Bushehr "seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program"?
I don't like the way the US/Israel is handling this situation. First of all attacking the computers of an operating nucreal power plant is quite dangerous as it might cause a meltdown if they don't act fast enough, and if there is an explosion or fire then the radioactive debris can be swept by the wind and blow into the face of the israelis and neighboring countries. Second of all, this is merely delaying the innevitable: that Iran will someday make a nuclear bomb. It might happen in 10 or 20 years but it's going to happen; if they got the ressources to set up a functioning nuclear power plant they will find a way to get enough enriched plutonium to make a bomb. Now i'm not saying US should start a new ground war or use drones, but the methods they are using right now are not effective in the long term. So, yeah something to think about. (I guess stuxnet buys them that time to think about what to do about Iran in the next 5-10 years)
Seriously, maybe Slashdot should change it's title to "News from yesterday, stuff that might still matter".
I realize Slashdot isn't a news site, but seeing news or stories about things that happened days or weeks ago is a little ridiculous.
-rt
....- which is what the rest of the Reasoning World realizes and geopolitical n00bs like you fail to realize.
Really?
The way I see it is that Israel has been stealing Arab land. Now other Muslim countries sees that their "brothers" are being treated unjustly - please, the "settlements" (land theft) are just stirring the pot and NOT adding to Israel's security. The Iranian Government is just talking big and everyone knows that the Arabs don't want them having nukes anymore than the Israelis - thanks to WikiLeaks.
Israel, feeling that the entire World is against them may well believe that they have nothing to lose and use their nukes. That's right, I AM saying that if anyone is going to use their nukes it will be Israel first because of their irrational security.
If Israel pulled back to the 1967 borders, including abandoning their "settlements" and give the Palestinians their own State ( and that would mean the Palestinians getting their act together!), their security would actually improve. Unfortunately, there's a bunch of asshole right wingers over there (the ones who'll call you a NAZI for saying that) who won't be satisfied until they piss off everyone to be secure. Then THEY will use NUKES to "defend themselves". The Ariel Sharon rule - instigate something, say you have to defend yourself, and go to war and exterminate the other side.
Israel CAN have the security they want if they would stopped being assholes and giving the assholes on the other side plenty of reasons to be assholes themselves.
Personally, I would be more than happy of all of those assholes nuked each other.
Let them kill each other and let their God sort it out!
http://www.iranwatch.org/privateviews/First%20Watch/perspex-fwi-plutoniumprocessing-0304.htm
They'd need a reprocessing facility, and some way to handle undesirable concentrations of Pu-240, which decays by spontaneous fission and complicates bomb design.
i don't care about israel. israel doesn't matter: iran shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god. this is not the kind of person i want with a nuclear weapon
this is the constitution of iran:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html
you want a government who believes these things in possession of a nuclear weapon?
and please, don't get me wrong: i don't have any problems with islam. if this document was centered on christianity or judaism i would have the same repulsion. i have problem with religious power structures, period. some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?! self-fulfilling prophecy? hello?
no, no fucking thanks, no nuke for iran
again: i don't care about israel. i have no problem with islam. i simply have a major serious problem with religious kooks possessing a nuclear bomb. NO THANK YOU
and please, i don't want any asshole lecturing me about false equivalency: that it's the same as pakistan, or israel, or the usa, or whatever: no, it isn't really the same. iran is EXPLICITLY a theocracy. A THEOCRACY. do you understand that? it really is different than saying "well gw bush is religious". yeah, good for him. but the fucking government he is part of isn't based on the fucking pope or some rabbi holding all ultimate power. that difference is real
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not up on my Iranian reactor design.
What'd the Russians sell 'em?
Was the reactor ever fired up?
If so, for how long?
The answers to those three questions are the things that determine whether or not we should be worried. Everything else in this thread has been noise. *sigh*
If it is possible for the material to be used to make a nuclear weapon, then this may be a bad thing. If it isn't then yay, counter terrorist hackers ftw!
Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist state seems like a very bad thing if you don't think murdering innocents intentionally is an acceptable political tactic.
Imagine David Karesh with a nuke...
I know it's a bad analogy, I'm just sayin these Iranian dudes ain't cooking with a full load of fava beans.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
for Duke Nukem Forever!
Did you ever read what is written on each and every US Dollar bill and coin?
Should we trust the USA to be the only theocratic country with nukes?
That is great, except that during operation, uranium-238 absorb neutrons and becomes plutonium. It is easier to separate the plutonium from the fissile waste for weapons than it is to separate u-235 from natural uranium. (Uranium has to be separated by mass )
i don't fucking care about israel. i don't care if it exists for a thousand years or disappears tomorrow. neither occurrence would change my opinion about the THEOCRACY of iran having nukes
my opinion about iran having nukes has to do with IRAN. with the CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS of the government possessing nuclear weapons. in iran's case, and iran's case alone, a RELIGIOUS power structure is getting possession of a nuclear weapon. this really bothers me, immensely. and it has nothing to do with islam. it would bother me just as much i f we were talking about a country with a jewish or christian theocracy
a THEOCRACY should not have nuclear weapons. beginning and end of discussion
everyone please shut the fuck up with the false equivalencies: only iran is a theocracy. and that is the source of the formation of my opinion
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's different because religious zealots are more likely to be suicidal. As evil as the Soviets were, at least they wanted to live. The didn't believe that a bearded dude handed out rewards in an afterlife for holy warfare victories. The Iranian theocrats may decide it's "worth it" to take us out even if it means they die.
I suppose they could possibly argue the same about the far right in the US. However, Christianity does not have a significant history of suicidal martyrdom (at least not intentional).
Table-ized A.I.
> some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?!
It is actually worse for the twelvers to have bombs vs some crazed Pentecostals having the bomb because the twelvers believe they can actually cause the chaos that leads to their end times scenario. Most Christians, even the end times types, would reject the notion that they can 'force God's hand', most even reject the notion we can know when the big kaboom is coming exactly. Not saying if they did have the bomb a couple couldn't manage to convince themselves they were God's chosen instrument, hearing the voice of God in their dental fillings or whatever. What I am saying is IAmANutJob is saying, loud, proud and notoriously at the UN on live tv, he can 'hasten the return of the Mahdi' now, before getting his crazy hand on The Button. When a maniac all but comes out and says "I want the world to burn" perhaps we should decide we don't need to wait and see if he means it before inducing lead poisoning.
And before some barely functioning idiot says one of the obvious rejoinders I'll go ahead and answer them.
1. Yes that is a call to assassinate a head of state.
2. Yes that is a call for the US to act like the 'policeman of the world' or something. Not that the current pussy running this joint would act against a foe. He only throws allies under the bus. (Support any foe, Oppose any friend. Sorta the mirror universe version of JFK. Obama should have a beard.)
3. No it won't ''solve' the prolifiation problem long term. But them most solutions don't solve all future problems. I don't claim to have the answer to how we all transcend to Good people who all come together in peace and fellowship, singing Kumbaya into eternity. But I do have a solution to one dangerous asshole who is soon going to have the means to trigger an event that will leave hundreds of millions of dead and dying. At the risk of Godwins law, lots of folks saw the growing problem in the 1930 and ended up inventing 'rational reasons' (rationalizations) for doing nothing. Until Reagan, all right thinking people believed the West was going to lose to the Soviets so why raise a ruckus, besides we had it coming because of [insert rationalization]. How many times does history need to repeat?
[troll] :)
If anyone needed final proof the Iranians are batshit crazy, they built their secret nuke program on off the shelf Windows PCs and apparently didn't even take basic precautions. Guess they thought Allah would protect them in their Holy work or something. Guess the Mossad's God was bigger.
[/troll]
Democrat delenda est
I'm really scared about all this. I live in California, will I be in any danger from Iran? I wonder if I would be safer in Canada, although I do have a bunker under my weather lab.
Kevin Martin, Meteorologist SCWXA
Like one of the secret facilities they are so adept at keeping from the IAEA? There were new underground facilities being constructed that remained undetected for a long time. If these facilities were for civilian energy needs (perfectly legitimate IMHO) then why bury them and hide them from IAEA inspection (since the inspectors would easily be able to see they were for civilian use or not, which would confirm the sites as being for peaceful purposes).
Civilian nuclear plants are not optimized for the production of weapons grade plutonium. The most economically efficient way to produce power creates Pu-239 (the bomb stuff) and Pu-240, which will result in predetonation in an implosion nuclear weapon. (It is totally impractical to isotopically separate Pu-239 from Pu-240 because they're sufficiently radioactive)
However, if you remove the nuclear fuel in a civilian plant prematurely, such as what Iran is doing, then less of the Pu-239 being produced will be turned in to Pu-240 (just a small amount poisons the reactor). And it can be used to make weapons, though a purpose-designed plant to make weapons grade plutonium is more economically efficient (e.g. graphite instead of water moderated).
This premature removal of fuel rods (and likely reprocessing) along with Iran's other actions show a renewed committment to producing nuclear weaponry.
It's President spouting populist bullshit is not in charge. Most of the "death to zion" crap is to try to get the Arab nations on side and was to try and increase the President's popularity so that he could get some real power.
I'd say the nukes were planned for places a bit closer than Israel. Iran would get almost nothing from an attack on Israel apart from an empty thank you from Syria and a schizophrenic reaction of both gratitude and extreme hostility from Lebanon.
Iran is doomed. They made the fatal mistake of threatening Israel. They will pay the same way Sadam Hussein has paid for the Scud missiles of the first Gulf War. Iran has oil. It is the missing piece between Irak and Afghanistan. When the war profiteers go back to the White House in 2012, Iran will be invaded like Irak and Afghanistan.
Atleast, the present Iran. Its almost a dictatorship. No, not Ahmanenijad. The religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. Its like giving nukes to a mini Osama bin Laden. So far, US and Israel have been successful in making sure that he wont get his toys.
If these facilities were for civilian energy needs (perfectly legitimate IMHO) then why bury them and hide them from IAEA inspection
To make it harder for Israel to drop a bomb on them, perhaps? You know, like it's been threatening to do for years, has gone so far as to plan out in detail and try and get US permission for, and has done before to Syria.
For the same reason that Saddam was refusing to allow weapons inspectors in. Iran is surrounded by hostile neighbours. It's a persian state, with mostly arabic neighbours. Actually using nuclear weapons would be a political impossibility for Iran - not least because it shares a border with all of the potential targets and the fallout would be as bad for them as for the enemy. However, appearing to have the capability to launch a nuclear strike is a pretty good deterrent against an attack - they probably won't use it, but you can't be completely sure. If they actually had demonstrable nuclear weapons, they'd be hit by international sanctions and risk invasion from the USA, but if they just hide something and don't let anyone see what it is, then their neighbours will assume it's something dangerous. Unfortunately for Saddam, people like Tony Blair and George W. Bush took his boasts seriously (or at least pretended to) and so it didn't work out so well for him. Iran has to be even more careful - trying to look to their neighbours as if they have a nuclear capability, but not look the same way to the rest of the world. If they give the rest of the world a definitive negative, then their local credibility goes. It's a difficult diplomatic balancing act.
The other aspect of this is the need to keep periodically threatening Israel. Iran is like the kid hanging out with a group of bullies and loudly taunting the kid that they all pick on. Hating Israel is about the only thing that Iran has in common with the Arabic countries, so they have to play up this aspect.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh, I was not aware that Israel has dropped bombs on any civilian-only sites. Do you have proof of that?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Short of doing a difficult isotope separation on the Pu, I'd be quite surprised if they were able to make use of power reactor Pu for bomb production. The British and the US both did some testing toward that in the 50s and concluded it was impractical. It's far easier to set up a reactor with a neutron energy cross section that limits the amount of heavier Pu isotopes.
This is why the US and other countries were willing to build light water power reactors for North Korea, as the Pu would be difficult to divert into a nuclear weapons program.
This idea that power reactor Pu is easily processed into bomb fuel is largely a myth.
The problem for proliferation is, that if a country sets up a reprocessing facility for recovering plutonium, it looks the same no matter whether it's processing power reactor fuel, or fuel from a reactor specifically set up to make bomb fuel.
Example: If Iran had no reprocessing facility, you could be fairly sure they weren't using the Pu path to weapons. (Reprocessing facilities can be fairly easily detected as they are large industrial operations that leave an isotopic footprint, as mentioned in the article you link to.)
But, if Iran had a reprocessing facility, ostensibly to reprocess fuel from a power reactor like Bushehr, it would be difficult to verify they weren't also using it to reprocess fuel from a different source that had a better isotopic makeup for bomb fuel.
This is why developing a different reprocessing method than PUREX, like pyroprocessing, is attractive. It creates a mixed fuel of all the actinides remaining in the spent fuel that isn't particularly suitable for bomb making.
So who is gonna invade Iran today? Iraq with Saddam gone for the last 8 years? Turkey? Afghanistan? Russian? Israel? Your argument just doesn't hold water I'm afraid. If Iran wanted to be stronger it would try and have better relations with arms producers (eg. Russia, France etc) and would be stronger. It is far better to have stronger conventional forces you can actual use rather than some hypothetical or actual nuke you can't - and the Iranians are smart enough to know this. Iran threatening Israel is a domestic ploy, distract your public with a bogeyman and you can get away with a lot of things (US, Russia, China etc also do this all the time to their own people).
I keep hearing this fallout claim. I could understand it if they were dropping the equivalent of one of the US's or Russia's bombs but I have to assume their first nuclear weapon would be far less powerful, more along the lines of fat man and little boy right? The fallout from those bombings didn't wreck all of Japan and if you're at the point where you're dropping nuclear weapons you're not really concerned about environmental impact studies that cancer rates might increase 5% for some small effected area 30 years down the road.
Ethanol-fueled may be a troll, but he's certainly no coward.
Give respect where it is due.
If the reactor never ran then the fuel rods only contain uranium 235. Plutonium is made while the reactor is running, and this one was never finished. This means the fuel rods removed are of no military value, but could be used to fuel new reactors.
If Iran wanted to be stronger it would try and have better relations with arms producers (eg. Russia, France etc)
I'm not sure what the official stance is today, but historically Iran's relationships with Russia and France have always been decent -- far better than its relationship with the U.S., anyway. France came under a lot of fire for selling weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran also used the SECAM television format for many years, which suggests technology trade with France. Rumor has it Russia is planning some more weapons sales in the near future. Like I said, I'm not sure where they stand officially, but it seems to me France and Russia are among the only countries whose names ever crop up in news stories about trade with Iran.
Breakfast served all day!
Not quite the same. What are the actual limits on power of the President Of The United States? What checks and balances are there to make sure the President Of The United States follows the will of the people/democratic process? It appears while there might be some limits in theory in practice the President Of The United States has the Army and courts to do whatever the hell he wants. America has the trappings of a democracy but in actual practice it is a very corrupt absolute oligarchy. Which is a real shame since all the Americans I meet I really like as generally intelligent, warm and humerous people.
"post anonymously" checkbox just above the subject line.
There has been lots of reports to attacks to civilian instalations in Palestine (here the press covered an attack in an -empty at the time- school financed by the EU). Not to mention when they bulldoze someone's home because he happens to have a neighbour who has put a bomb in Israel.
So yes, they do attack civilian only installations. And don't give a shit about if the world is ok with that.
Why can't
If Iran wanted to be stronger it would try and have better relations with arms producers (eg. Russia, France etc)
I'm not sure what the official stance is today, but historically Iran's relationships with Russia and France have always been decent -- far better than its relationship with the U.S., anyway. France came under a lot of fire for selling weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran also used the SECAM television format for many years, which suggests technology trade with France. Rumor has it Russia is planning some more weapons sales in the near future. Like I said, I'm not sure where they stand officially, but it seems to me France and Russia are among the only countries whose names ever crop up in news stories about trade with Iran.
You are wrong about Russia... in the XIX century it was a key piece of the Great Game (the competition of Russia and UK, UK to mantain hegemony in the Indic and Russian attempts to get a "warm" harbour in it. It happened that one of the paths going south from Russia was through... Iran (Persia at that time).
Later on, during WWII the URSS and UK invaded the country to use it to send materiel (lend-lease) to the Russians. And when the war ended, Stalin tried to get himself a "buffer zone" that included some of the oil producing regions of Iran.
It looks like more a "Iran hates the Shah" AND "USA gives asylum to the Shah" -> "Iran hates USA". Add to that "the enemies of my enemies are my friends", and you get the typical Cold War byproduct.
Why can't