Slashdot Mirror
How Close Is Iran, Really, To Nuclear Weapons
Lasrick writes "A Reuters blog post by Yousaf Butt explains the science, or lack thereof, behind recent claims that Iran is closer to building the bomb. Butt has been writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, most recently blasting the unsourced AP 'Iranian graph' that claimed to show nuclear testing activity as well as the Washington Post story about Iran's alleged order of 100,000 magnets for their centrifuges."
Of course, left unsaid in all of this is... would Iran ever use a nuke?
Iran wants nukes for the same reason that the North Korea wants them, to keep the U.S. from ever invading their legs of the "Axis of Evil" (like they did with Iraq). And if you're a smaller country about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't and won't invade is to have nukes.
So it's very unlikely that Iran would ever use its nukes. Merely having them would achieve their objective (stopping any invasion).
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The point is to start a war with them to suit Israel.
End of story.
Al Jazeera English is one of the most respected and most neutral networks in the world. Yeah, they are biased about Qatar and Syria (everybody knows that). But Al Gore didn't sell his TV Station to a Jihadist Network. It is a well respected organization that has guests like Neil de Grasse Thyson or Gary Johnson (which are not known for supporting Anti-Americanism).
...about 50 countries are estimated to have it. Sometimes called "Latent", but I prefer the "Threshold" term, it has the right connotation of stepping right up to the line and voluntarily stopping.
Nation that CAN build a bomb in months flat = Nation not to stage a major invasion of. (By the time Russia, Pakistan, or the US could marshal up forces to take on a nation of 70 million, the first bombs are coming off the line).
Nation that HAS built a bomb = target
And Iran knows it.
Understanding that doesn't involve liking or trusting them. Meanwhile this has to be the ninth time in a dozen-odd years that the "Attack Iran" nuts (after their Iraq debacle, "nuts" is the only appropriate word) have played Lucy and the Football with gullible US conservatives. The big windup, then no bomb.
In the end, it's all just posturing for more respect from other nations. Iran isn't reckless enough to actually do anything that would end in the entire Western world declaring war on them in response.
That would be all well and good if certain movers and shakers within the west weren't agitating significantly with a view to starting a war. Frankly these people and their pawns should be incarcerated and their assets seized. If a drunk teenager can be arrested for suggesting on facebook a riot that doesn't even happen then how is it that those in the media pushing for wars that will result in tens of thousands dead can walk away scott free?
And just what do you claim those "clear intentions" to be? Even if they're trying to weaponize nuclear material (a separate argument), look at a map - they're exactly between Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely, the most effective defense against the popular "shock and awe" offensive warfare practiced by the US is the ability to respond with a "shock and awe" defense. Those in the "nuclear club" have been saying for 50 years that nukes are well suited as weapons of deterrence.
We all know where the Iraqi WMDs which were used to justify an attack on them were - in someone's imagination. And, the obvious outcome aside, if some radical group residing in the US flew a plane into a foreign building, arguing that the US could then be legitimately attacked in "defense" would be considered ludicrous.
Interestingly, Iran is a signatory to the NPT (although said to be in non-compliance, it does cooperate with the IAEA at some level), while Israel (which is believed to have hundreds of nuclear warheads) isn't , and has openly declared that they will not cooperate with the IAEA.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It seems that the IAEA has in all their reports strong indications that the nuclear program is peaceful.
and yet the IAEA has indeed issued a report owning to strong suspicions the program is not peaceful. From The Economist
The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), published a damning report detailing its concerns over the “possible military dimensions” of Iran's nuclear programme ... The IAEA's November report also indicated that Iran had probably already tested a sophisticated detonation system for an explosive device suitable for use as a ballistic-missile warhead (albeit the tests are likely to have taken place before 2004, when the weaponisation side of the programme was pursued more energetically than it is today). Informed by the IAEA's work and intelligence sources, estimates of Iran's potential timeline to nuclear weapons—if the country were to quit the NPT and throw everything into its programme—vary between just a couple of months for a single crude device and more than two years for an arsenal of three or four nuclear-tipped, solid-fuelled ballistic missiles.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Might I suggest you go read the actual IAEA reports direct from the horses mouth?
They say no such thing, and the IAEA have been very clear in their consecutive reports for about a year now that they have concerns and some degree of evidence that Iran may well be trying to create a nuclear weapon.
I don't know why people keep spreading myths about what the IAEA has or hasn't said, it's very clear what they've said and it's publicly available on their website for all to see.
Who cares what some news organisation or blogger has said, what the IAEA has said is that they've seen enough to be rather concerned. Also, your speculation about what the NPT does and doesn't allow is false too - again, something that can be trivially confirmed by reading the masses of publicly available official documentation on the subject.
I'm not saying whether Iran does or doesn't actually have a bomb or if they are or aren't trying to get one, but I am saying that people trying to defend Iran need to quit it with the lies and myths. They keep making stuff up that simply doesn't tally with official commentary and documentation on the issue, that complete lack of credibility alone does more to damage their cause than anything else. The other side of the debate are far from perfect, but at least whether they intentionally checked them or coincidentally are just on the right side of the argument in this regard, they at least have facts on their side over issues such as Iran's breach of it's obligations, and the IAEA's concerns on the issue.
The statement you quote "no evidence of diversion of material and nuclear activities towards military purposes," just means that Iran currently isn't diverting that material to military purposes.
It means that the IAEA has no information it can publicly reveal on the subject. "No evidence" is much different than "it's not happening".
Lets have some common sense here. Iran wants nukes... as well they should. If anything is going to prevent a US invasion, it's nukes.
Secondly, Iran has no use for peaceful nuclear power. They have an abundance of oil. Energy is basically free for them. Do you think they suddenly started caring about their CO2 emissions? I really doubt it.
Thirdly, Iran is under horrible sanctions because of their nuclear development. Some countries have even offered to build nuclear power plants for them, that would remain in foreign control but give Iran all of the power for free... and Iran refuses. Why is that?
The fact is, Iran wants Nuclear weapons. They are almost assuredly trying to develop them under the guise of a peaceful program. But, there's nothing we can really do about it. They WILL get nuclear weapons eventually. Short of a full invasion, there's very little we can do. It may be a year from now, or 50, but one day Iran will test their first bomb and then we'll know for sure.
'Israel' has been claiming that Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon "in under 36 months" or some other value of foo months, for over a decade. They've completely discredited themselves on this front, as has the United States.
It just takes logic.
In this case, Iran has a uranium enrichment program that they are dead set on keeping to power hypothetical nuclear reactors that they promise to build sometime later, and haven't really even started. The one that the Russians built is being fueled with externally purchased fuel, and other nations have also been willing to sell lots of reactor grade fuel. Iran has refused to take this deal.
So Iran is spending lots of money, and incurring major economic distress to continue with enriching uranium. If it were truly for nuclear power reactors, an economic development issue, it makes no sense for them to pursue this path. Besides, they have lots of natural gas, and gas is not cheaply or easily transported (unlike petroleum), and it makes much more sense for them to use natural gas for electrical power generation and export as much petroleum as they can, just like every other Persian Gulf state.
There is also intelligence that they received information from A.Q. Khan's proliferation network.
Simple logic shows that the empirical evidence around Iranian government's policies and actions is most compatible with a nuclear weapons program and not a nuclear power only program.