Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Close Is Iran, Really, To Nuclear Weapons

Posted by samzenpus on from the big-boom dept.

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."

15 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Yousaf Butt? by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want to make a joke about his name, but I just can't bring myself to take such an easy shot.

  2. Promises! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't worry, Obama promised us that he will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

  3. The IAEA has no actual evidence by maweki · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The IAEA has no actual evidence by khallow · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      No such form exists. You can always react it with fluorine, do the centrifuge thing, and thereby increase the concentration of uranium 235. And since it is a higher grade than what Iran started with, it requires less energy to close the gap to weapon grade.

      It seems that the IAEA has in all their reports strong indications that the nuclear program is peaceful.

      No it doesn't. 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. That will come later when they have enough material and otherwise working fission bombs to use that material.

      You don't admit you have nukes until you set one off openly. That's how several of the other nuclear powers did it.

    2. Re:The IAEA has no actual evidence by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:The IAEA has no actual evidence by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:The IAEA has no actual evidence by runeghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      '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.

    5. Re:The IAEA has no actual evidence by goldstein · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is really a stretch to describe Iran as a country "awash in oil". Production peaked decades ago ( http://crudeoilpeak.info/irans-2nd-and-last-oil-peak ) and there is the obvious point that reducing internal oil consumption will help extend the life of existing oil fields and/or maximize exports. It might be noted that Saudi Arabia has plans to build 16 power reactors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia ).

  4. Define what "close" means by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Define what "close" means by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?
    2. Re: Define what "close" means by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US has not invaded Iran.

      No, you're not looking at it from their perspective. Here is the timeline as they see it:

      U.S. declares us part of The Axis of Evil, then proceeds to invade one of the other members of that Axis. The U.S. then becomes bogged down in that other country (thanks in part to our heroic support of the insurgency). This leaves us (and the third member of the Axis) with a brief window to develop nukes, before the U.S. can regroup and prepare invasions for us too.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  5. Who cares how close they are? by fredrated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point is to start a war with them to suit Israel.
    End of story.

  6. About one B52 flight away! by mrmtampa · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)
  7. "Threshold Nuclear Capability" by rbrander · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  8. Iran and Chemical Weapons by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)