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."
I want to make a joke about his name, but I just can't bring myself to take such an easy shot.
Don't worry, Obama promised us that he will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Last year in an IAEA report they said that iran doesn't refine its uranium to weapon's grade but to a metallic form that can be used in reactors but can not be refined further. Now Aljazeera writes: The IAEA's report showed "no evidence of diversion of material and nuclear activities towards military purposes,"
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/02/2013221224353882956.html
It seems that the IAEA has in all their reports strong indications that the nuclear program is peaceful. So IAEA officials have been denied access to military installations which are not covered by the Nuclear non proliferation treaty. And even then, Iran has allowed inspections at a later date even though the IAEA has no right to do so (it wouldn't have in any other nation as well).
I have the distinct feeling that western media is very biased. But it was with Iraq's WMDs (or lack thereof) as well.
Does Iran know how to build a basic weapon? Yes. But then again, so do a lot of others.
Does Iran have the technological skills to make a war head small enough to be delivered on one of their missiles? Debatable, but inevitable and practice makes perfect. They could use some help with the CEP and range of those missiles too.
Does Iran have anything other than a uranium based bomb available? Not at this time. And the chemical reprocessing necessary for irradiated fuel out of Arak or the TRR is not a layup. Years, if not a decade.
How long will it take Iran to enrich to 90%+ their current LEU? A couple of months, tops. Most of the SWU's are spent just getting to LEU.
Of course, left unsaid in all of this is... would Iran ever use a nuke? Given that India and Pakistan have not (and there is certainly no shortage of nutters in those countries), that Israel has 2-300, the USSR a few thousand... I think the resounding answer is no. Persians exports are carpets and pistachios, not glass.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Looking at his bio, most of his work for FAS seems to be arguing against missile defense. He seems to be a bit of an activist. Basically, he comes across as a bit of an ostrich about Iran's nuclear program: nuclear weapons are bad, and war is bad; therefore if the Iranians are seeking nuclear weapons, it justifies ballistic missile defense (which he's against) and possibly an attack (which he's against) to stop Iran from reaching their goal; therefore Iran must not be seeking nuclear weapons. Not exactly a scientific chain of argument, but it seems to be the path he's on (based on that last link, and two of his other articles that I read through).
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
What's the distance to North Korea? That's how close Iran is from having nuclear weapons TODAY.
In fact, as close as Iraq previous to the US invasion. There is no better prediction than the one that you make it happen.
The point is to start a war with them to suit Israel.
End of story.
If they aren't careful!
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
Like Iraq's weapons programs....
According to the NNPT Iran can have civilian nuclear program. But according to the West, they can't. Who's the bully again.....
...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.
its an irrelevant question that only we are asking. we sanction the country into poverty in the hopes we can reign in a rising power that would upset the 'regional balance' of american dominance that ensures cheap oil and compliance through a network of corrupt foreign leaders. after ensuring everything from banking to foreign trade is nearly impossible, we rest our head in our hands and wonder, 'when will iran create this horrible weapon they seek to use against the world?'
Good people go to bed earlier.
If a drunk thug in a bar says he want to shoot Bill Gates, do you put you send the SWAT team when he buys lead at a fishing shop ?
Name the countries that HAVE used WMDs, have invaded countries on BS grounds and support(ed) terrorists and dictatorships around the world.
Notice anything?
Now how is the thug calling the kettle black?
... because they're different from us, have no way of credibly causing us major damage, and because we NEED an enemy to justify the billions which are being spent on kickbacks and slush funds in the weapons industry.
Some of those billions actually get through to the factory floor and turn into weapons, so we need to test them as well...
Well, a difficulty is the lagging of the Islamic world in science and technology-- they are very short in the skilled people needed for making a credible nuclear technology infrastructure, although Iran possibly slightly less than much of the rest of the middle East. Religious fundamentalism doesn't serve well as a way to educate scientists and engineers (...and that should be a lesson for the US, not just Iran.)
There was a good article "Why the Arabic World Turned Away From Science" recently:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science
(Yes, I know that Iran is not Arabic, but Persian. The article title is somewhat misleading; it discusses Persian science as well as Arabic.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
"who's funding them"
Qatar. And their feud with Assad possibly dictates the Syria coverage. But there's no other money in the game. It's one family funding the operation from their oil-wealth. Not a plethora of commercial interests like Fox "News"
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
Actually, I suspect that you misunderstand their objective. Oh, maybe stopping a US invasion is a secondary objective, but I don't think that's their primary objective. Their primary objective seems to be (if you take their word for it) bringing about a new Caliphate under Shi'a dominance.
Just as a note; they wouldn't be interested in a Caliphate; that was an Arabic hegemony. Iraq might like to see a new caliphate, ruled once again from Baghdad, but Iran wouldn't. They would like to restore the Persian empire.
--Basically, though, having the bomb would make them the big bullies on the block. It's more of the 90-pound-weakling-wanting-to-become-Charles-Atlas thing: once they have the bomb, they figure nobody's going to kick sand in their faces any more, and the world will pay attention to them, putting them back in (what they perceive to be) their rightful place as big boys deserving respect.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
They've been claiming their regional rivals have been a year away from an evil nuke for probably 10 years now. Israel needs to STFU and worry about the 200 or so unreported nukes they have in flagrant violation of the same international laws they want Iran eviscerated under.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
No. But a single family has far fewer interests for which to exert bias.
A guy has just seen a gang of bandits break into his neighbors' house to rape, murder, and rob them. Now, I think this guy is an awfully crummy fellow --- he beats his wife, and molests his children. I hope he gets kicked out of his house to die miserable and alone. However, having seen what the bandits have done to a bunch of other homes, I know his wife and children will be even worse off if the bandits get to them. I'm in a bit of a moral quandary, but I'm not going to condemn this guy for arming up to lay some whoop-ass on the bandits if they show up at his door --- it's not the best of situations, but better than giving the bandits free rein.
If you're going to talk about "thugs on the street," please remember that the street where the violence happens isn't in your home town --- the U.S. is the real knife-wielding thug who's shown up on Baghdad Street, and is swaggering towards Tehran Avenue. If you're capable of a little self-reflection, your argument above justifies Iran arming up.
It is telling that during the Iran Iraq war, when Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranians, Iran did not respond in kind. In truth, it seems likely that many in the Iranian political class look at weapons of mass destruction with disgust. That said, they are obviously pursuing nuclear weapons to some degree. A source that I have, who is quite plugged into these things thinks that Iran wants to get a few months away from having nuclear weapons, and then hold short.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
As interesting as ever:
Adam Curtis - The Power of Nightmares
It gives an interesting view of how this whole situation with evil states and global terrorist networks spiralled out of control.
If you have three hours of time that is... But it's definitely fascinating imho.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0kNNqZk3mg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qATc5jRbVOA
And after we illegally and immorally invaded, found out that Hussein was talking about them most heavily to influence Iran, with whom they'd fought a truly bloody war that lasted years, to prevent further attacks?
I'd expect them to be using 90+% of their effort for nuclear power, and a tiny bit elsewise for PR purposes, and aren't really interested in them.
Why do I think that (since this is slashdot in 2013, not 2001, I have to say that)? Simple: what would they target? Israel? Where? They can't target Jerusalem, where most of Israel's government is, because the city is sacred to Muslims, as well, and doing so would bring the entire Muslim world down on them, as well as a good part of their own people.
Anywhere else in Israel is almost as bad, since (after the ignorant idiots here look at a map of Israel and the scale) Israel is actually about the size of New Jersey, and the fallout would do almost the *entire* country, Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Oh, yes, and the winds would blow fallout towards Iran.
So the *only* purpose they'd have to build one is for MAD (not the magazine, kiddies) with Israel, and it costs a *lot* less to pretend to be doing it.
mark
"who's funding them" Qatar. And their feud with Assad possibly dictates the Syria coverage. But there's no other money in the game. It's one family funding the operation from their oil-wealth. Not a plethora of commercial interests like Fox "News"
lol. The royal family of Saud owns one sixth of fox news, and their wealth is 100 percent oil derived. Care to revise your assertion about Fox News?
Whenever some country comes close to the final development of nuclear bombs, the Americans and the Russians send a special ambassador to them to have 'the talk'.
The talk goes something like this:
"Well, we have been able to detect that you are close to developing a functioning nuclear weapon. Don't deny it, just shut up and listen.
We and the Russians (or the Americans, depending on who's talking) have constructed a situation between ourselves where we both have enough hydrogen bombs to kill every living thing on earth and still have enough left over to blow up the moon. You, on the other hand, will so have enough nuclear weaponary to blow up a shopping mall and its parking lot. We and the Russians (or Americans, as the case may be) have our weapons set on hair-trigger automated response so that anything from a flock of geese to a stray alpha particle could set the whole thing off and take everybody with it. We're not exactly proud of this situation and would like to tone it all down a bit. But it has taken on a life of its own and basically, at this point, we're stuck with it.
In this situation as it is and will continue to be, there's no room for half assed clowns like you. You are a pissant wild card that could easily blunder into fucking up the balance and causing the entire destruction of world civilization. We know that you don't think this way, and you believe that you have legimate reasons for making this nuclear bomb, but, frankly, you and any of your reasons don't mean shit to us or the Russians (or Americans).
So here's the deal. You're not going to like it. But you don't have any choice. You are a third world peasant of no real consequence and we are the two countries that have 15000 hydrogen bombs between us. That means we rule the world that you live in and we decide the way things are going to be.
We can't afford to have ANY nuclear event horizon happen that might escalate into global nuclear exchange. We aren't going to let August 1914 happen again where the assassination of minor playboy prince dominoed into a World War.
So, if ANY nuclear event happens in your corner of the world, by anybody, for any reason, we are going to assume YOU are responsible and we and the Russians (or the Americans, again, depending on who's delivering 'the talk') are going to nuke your entire country past present and future into sparkling glowing dust.
In other words, if you go ahead with this program of making a nuclear device, and then announce to the world that you have a bomb, and actually do a successful test of it (and we will know if you have), then you are going to have to take control and responsibility of all the crazy fools in your part of the world who also might somehow get a rogue nuclear device. And we all know that you have a lot of crazy fools in your part of the world.
That's the way it is. The choice is yours.
Have a nice day. "
Basically the USA:USSR has given this talk to the Israelis, Japanese, Pakistanis, Indians, South Africans, and North Koreans so far. The Israelis and Japanese were smart enough to never acknowledging their bombs or (in the case of the Japanese) their ability to build one in a short time. The South Africans gave up their nuclear bombs when apartheit ended. The Pakis and Indians are happy to accept their own destruction if it means the destruction of the other Pakis and Indians because they believe that they'll just go to heaven and the other Pakis:Indians won't. And the North Koreans are too bat-shit crazy to care about anything anyway.
This is just conjecture, but the Iranians will most likely accept the terms of 'the talk' and then settle into the nuclear community background like the Chinese, British, and French have. Basically a "don't fuck with us and we won't fuck with you" Golden-Rule stance that seems to work the best in this bad situation that we have all lived with since the 1960s.
Iran is only one year away from building the bomb...
and so it was 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2010 and 2011...
see http://http//www.salon.com/2010/12/05/israeli_predictions_iranian_nukes/
It doesn't always follow that the money controls the editors.
Well this certainly explains the dearth of Dice-related articles on Slashdot. I was wondering why there were never any Dice articles. I'm glad that the money does not control the editors at either Al Jazeera, Fox, MSNBC, or Slashdot, and that all our news sources are so clean-handed and unbiased about this sort of thing.
My guess? About this close --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B80YXYslsW4
Yawn, Oh oh CTS is on his anti Iran hobby horse. If were not going to have theocracy with nukes lets start with Israel and the US. Iran has not started one war in 70 years!
Right. Simply proving that Israel isn't a responsible member of world society, along with North Korea, India, Pakistan and South Sudan.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law