Slashdot Mirror
Top-Secret US Replica of Iran Nuclear Sites Key To Weapons Deal
Lasrick writes Paul Richter at the LA Times has a very cool article describing replicas of Iran's nuclear facilities that the U.S. operates in order to study what Iran's technical capabilities are. "Using centrifuges acquired when Libya abandoned its nuclear program in 2003, as well as American-built equipment, the government has spent millions of dollars over more than a decade to build replicas of the enrichment facilities that are the pride of Iran's nuclear program. Since negotiations with Iran began in earnest, U.S. nuclear technicians have spent long hours tinkering with the machines to test different restrictions and see how much they would limit Iran's ability to convert uranium into bomb fuel."
Iran has been doing this for years.
At least our copies work.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This is getting way beyond creepy.
Is the US is shutting down all it's nuclear weapons programmes, or is this just the normal hypocrisy at work? Are you going to police China too? Russia? India? Pakistan? Just the intelligence costs alone from constant 'keyhole' overwatch, developing malware, etc must be astronomical.
Given that the USA managed it with 40ies technology, I would say that Iran should have no problem with 2003 technology. Maybe they can't build a bomb that powerful, but even the weakest nuke is powerful enough IMHO (as long as it's not a "dirty bomb").
Explain yourself. One fission bomb takes out a city or much of a large one and pisses another country off immensely. Retaliation would be of epic proportions. A thousand weapons could destroy another country completely. Israel might have hundreds of nukes, by the way. They need more than one or a dozen in their situation.
You've got a chance of shooting down 1 bomb coming at you. Not so much when there are 1000.
One bomb can take out a city. 1000 bombs can take out a country. USA dropped two bombs on Japan in WWII
The US government probably spent WAY more money building those replicas than Iran spent building the real thing.
Regardless of who's answer you believe, they would never drop it on Israel, and the reason why is simple. It is against Islamic law for a Muslim to cause harm to kill another Muslim.
Israel is surrounded by water and muslim countries. If anyone dropped a nuke on them, the follout is guaranteed to be blown over at least one muslim country regardless of wind direction (there's the simple answer), if not five or more. This would cause harm to or kill thousands of muslims, and any muslim country who did that would face an uprising that would make the Arab Spring look like a game of hackeysack.
I love reading about TOP SECRET things on public websites.
Things have slowed down as replicating Iran's nuclear facilities also replicated Stuxnet....
The point of this exercise is to keep them from getting enough enriched uranium for one bomb
Most of their enrichment now is below 5%, wit attempts to get up to 20%
Weapons grade is over 85%
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Pu240 is incredibly unstable and can start fission reactions spontaneously
Pu238 is used in thermal batteries on space missions. The US stopped producing it in the late 80's, so we have been running out since then
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Sure you would. Me too, probably.
But what I wouldn't do is go somewhere to blow up random civilians. Even if it was effective. And I certainly wouldn't pretend that God wanted me to do it.
And let's be clear, Iran sponsors terrorism that has nothing to do with protecting itself, and has done so for years. They seem like a nice eccentric country to people who fail to realize that the whole "Revolutionary" in "Revolutionary Guard" is not just for Iran. The whole Iranian Revolution was fully intended to be a theocratic Shiite uprising across the region and beyond.
Revolutionary Iran is *expansionistic*, it has merely been checked in its ambitions. Don't be confused between them being stopped and them being an innocent regime that just wants to be left alone. Iran with nukes is more war, not less. And if there is going to be a war, I want the US to win it, because in the end, we'll at least try to do the right thing, and failing that, we'll leave.
Isn't this sort of thing the reason government wanted all those supercomputers? To model this exact kind of thing? Or are all the supercomputers too busy sifting through everyone's phone calls and internet posts?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
But what I wouldn't do is go somewhere to blow up random civilians.
And that is why I think (historically) the democracy hasn't yet matured. Or probably even doesn't make any sense.
The big question about democracy is: who is responsible? those who were voted in the office? or those who voted them in?
The current "balance" is that nobody is responsible for anything. On the scale of the world, that is volatile and simply unsustainable.
And I certainly wouldn't pretend that God wanted me to do it.
"God" or "freedom" - there is really no difference between these imaginary entities. They are secondary anyway.
First people kill. Only then they look for a justification of their actions. Whatever makes people feel better about themselves or bear the guilt.
And let's be clear *skip*
That's a pretty senseless rant. Replace "Iran" with "Israel" and imaginary actions with real actions - and you are actually onto something.
And if there is going to be a war, I want the US to win it, because in the end, we'll at least try to do the right thing, and failing that, we'll leave.
Just like you did in Iraq. Very peaceful country. What they have? 10K civilian casualties per year? Very peaceful. Very freedom-y. And the best part: they owe you load of money for "freeing" them.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Regardless of who's answer you believe, they would never drop it on Israel, and the reason why is simple. It is against Islamic law for a Muslim to cause harm to kill another Muslim.
Israel is surrounded by water and muslim countries. If anyone dropped a nuke on them, the follout is guaranteed to be blown over at least one muslim country regardless of wind direction (there's the simple answer), if not five or more. This would cause harm to or kill thousands of muslims, and any muslim country who did that would face an uprising that would make the Arab Spring look like a game of hackeysack.
The amount of radiation depends on the size of the blast and the type of warhead used. The bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced residual radiation, but it didn't last very long. Many of the radionuclides had brief half-lives that in some cases were measured in minutes. The bomb sites were highly radioactive for a few hours after the detonations, but the residual radiation decreased rapidly. Also, and contrary to popular belief, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations did not cause genetic mutatinos. American military specialist who surveyed Hiroshima with Geiger counters weeks after the explosions found little residual radioactivity. So while there would probably be some radiation fallout in surrounding muslim countries and definitely a lot of people who die or become sick due to radiation in the target zones it would not be anything like what you imagine which seems to be wide stretches of land irradiated for tens of thousands of years and littered with the bodies of collateral muslim casualties so radioactive that they glow in the dark and don't decay because no micro organisms could survive in the intense radiation. Whenever somebody says nuclear strike people automatically default to thinking about cold war monster ICBMs carrying warheads in the 1 to 10 megaton range but you don't need to go that way. In fact Iran probably won't be able to because any warheads Iran is likely to create would be nowhere near the one megaton range. Realistic estimates I have seen for Iranian nuclear weapons top out at about 50 kilotons (as a reference the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons were in the 15-20 kiloton range). The fallout from a properly planned nuclear attack on Israel involving say half a dozen warheads in the sub 50 kiloton range would cause less fallout than that from US atmospheric nuclear tests in the 60s (the Yanks were setting off firecrackers way bigger than 50 kilotons). None of the fallout from those tests caused a civil insurrection in the USA that made the US civli war pale by comparison and this even after people became aware of what radiation can do to the human body. Personally I don't know which scares me more, Iranian Ayatollahs with nuclear weapons or right wing maniacs like Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu and Avigdor 'Avi' Lieberman with their fingers on the nuclear trigger. At least the Americans and the Soviets during the cold war were open to reason and logic but these Middle Eastern fanatics, jewish or muslim, are completely blinded by hate, religious fanaticism and race-political ideology.
P240, P241. Whatever it takes.
Have gnu, will travel.
Yeah, except that the whole "but Israel is just as bad" is a cop out. Israel has its issues, no argument there, but Iran didn't go a good 50+ years with hostile countries around them trying to drive them into the sea.
Iran has no reason to sponsor terrorism that makes any sense other than wanting to push their own agenda. There are no security issues that it solves for them. All it has done is piss countries off that might have otherwise let things lie.
And if you still believe Israel is a problem, then how much more of a problem are they with nuclear weapons? Do we really believe that Iran with nuclear weapons is going to make that better?
It was a mistake to go into Iraq without a serious plan and commitment for dealing with the fallout, but it is what it is. Most of the people killing each other are native to the area. If they don't want to unite to deal with their own problems, there's little anyone is going to be able to do for them.
Nevertheless, an Iran with nuclear weapons is still a lot less safe for everyone else then without them. They have the one thing that the Russians never had: they really believe they're going to heaven if they die while taking us with them. I'm more afraid of them holding one nuclear weapon than I was of the USSR holding 8,000. At least the Russians didn't think they had a backup plan to overcome Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranians aren't insane, but they will feel they can push the envelope more than the Soviets could. And with that much oil, we can't simply let them have it.
Are we discussing the behaviour of governments, or you personally? Because you start out by saying you'd never do something that the USA routinely does (drone strikes) and does in ways that no other country does. So if this is meant to be some kind of pissing match between the USA or Iran then Iran wins, as would basically any other country.
Iran with nukes is probably just Iran with nukes, same as lots of other countries that have nukes but don't invade random other places. But you keep on believing in American exceptionalism if it makes you feel better. The rest of us will mentally place the USA right where it belongs - rock bottom on the peace tables.
Israel is a tiny country surrounded by countries that have an avowed intention of destroying it. Comparing it to Iran, or almost any other nation on earth, is absurd.
Sounds like the same setup as was used for developing / testing stuxnet.
If we the US were invaded, _I_ would be making roadside bombs, shooting invading troops, doing whatever I could to free my home and I am sure that I would be called a "terrorist" back in the invading country's media.
No, no, no. You likely wouldn't if you don't even have the testicular fortitude to post under your actual handle.
The Patriot Act tested Americans' willingness to fight for our rights and we failed.
You could fight, but its a lot easier to just sit back with a drink, watch episodes of "24," and bitch on /. The government knows that and ensures that you have reliable access to liquor, electricity, and the internet while restricting your ability to obtain useful guns, ammo, body armor, and explosives.
Many of the powers in the Middle East haven't figured this sheepifying formula out yet, which is why they continue to endure social unrest.
Revolutionary Iran is *expansionistic*, it has merely been checked in its ambitions.
So who did they invade in a war of aggression? *crickets chirping*.
Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq. In the current war against ISIS they were INVITED in by the governments of the actual countries.
Sure they fund international terrorism but so do a lot of other countries. Some of which are US allies. Heck the US itself has funded terrorists.
Instead of telling Iran not to persue a nuclear program of any kind, they should first look at themselves. It's telling Iran not to create nuclear weapons otherwise there will be hell to pay, but they keep on making nuclear weapons themselves, so who is the agressor here.... And in history the only country ever using nuclear weapons is the US... So who are they to tell others not to pursue nuclear weapons (or energy)..
Not that I would like to have a country like Iran to have nuclear weapons, but if Isreal has them (and they have, and are not even allowed to have them) why not Iran too.. IMHO nobody should have nuclear weapons, and a country like the US should destroy all their nuclearweapons before telling others not to create them...
The "creation of Israel" by the United Nations? That creation? Israel is one of the few legitimately created countries on the face of the earth.
America did not invade Iraq for oil. The reason Saddam wasn't selling oil was because the US embargoed him. Why would we attack a country for the oil we refuse to buy from them, rebuild their fields, then start buying the oil from them? This argument makes no sense, there are far easier ways to get oil than spending as much money as we did on a war (which uses shitloads of oil that we shipped in) to "get the oil from Iraq".
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Woah! Is this the US trying to secretly develop a nuclear bomb!?!
Bullshit.
To make Uranium for a reactor requires around 1/100 or so the number of centrifuges they have that could be used for weapons production.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It would be great if Russia upheld their portion of the exact same treaty, but I guess you missed where they signed it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Israel is a tiny country surrounded by countries that have an avowed intention of destroying it. Comparing it to Iran, or almost any other nation on earth, is absurd.
Agreed.
America did not invade Iraq for oil. The reason Saddam wasn't selling oil was because the US embargoed him. Why would we attack a country for the oil we refuse to buy from them, rebuild their fields, then start buying the oil from them? This argument makes no sense, there are far easier ways to get oil than spending as much money as we did on a war (which uses shitloads of oil that we shipped in) to "get the oil from Iraq".
The reason Sadam was embargoed, as the story goes, is that he did the one thing that is forbidden, namely convert his oil fund to Euros. Iraq was selling oil for Euros by 2002. This severely threatens the petro dollar, which in turn threatens the whole US economy and the dollar as the world reserve currency. It's noteworthy that when Iraq came back on the oil market, the dollar was restored. They didn't sell one drop of oil for Euros.
Now, I don't really have a dog in the race, but it's a compelling theory. Google it and you'll find it expounded upon in great detail.
Stefan Axelsson
your "asymetrical warfare" meme that is often brought up has a problem, it doesn't work on a state that is totally brutal. It only works on the wimpy with a conscience. It didn't work on Rome as they expanded, one act of terrorism and they'd slaughter a city. The conquered might run out of cities and people, is the only possible result of terrorism against ancient Rome.