Slashdot Mirror


Antineutrino Detectors Could Be Key To Monitoring Iran's Nuclear Program

agent elevator writes: Tech that analyzes antineutrinos might be the best way to keep tabs on Iran's nuclear program. The technology, which can tell how much of and what kind of plutonium and uranium are nearby, should be ready to serve as a nuclear safeguard in less than two years, according to IEEE Spectrum. In a simulation of the Arak nuclear plant, which the Iran deal requires be redesigned to make less plutonium, a detector parked outside in a shipping container could do the job.

10 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds good. by Xenkar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about we also install these in Israel, a country that has threatened to bomb its neighbors? They apparently have an extensive nuclear program that isn't inspected or regulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    They are also a repressive country that denies same sex couples and interracial couples the right of marriage while their kin in the legal system and media forces it on us. It is 2015 and it is time Israel joins the rest of us in it.

    1. Re:Sounds good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The stench of lefty hipocrisy drips off your words like sweat off a toronto slut walker. You want us to respect muslims' rights to run their societies as they see fit, but israel is an exception?

  2. except the IAEA is still a thing. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    monitoring irans nuclear project has already been done, full stop. the only countries clammouring about the lies and deceit of the Iranian program and is utter affront to mankind are Israel and the United States. the IAEAE reports are impartial, international, and widely regarded to have the final say that Iran is not in fact developing a nuclear weapon. But for the US this doesnt matter because internationally accepted standards of monitoring and regulatory observation do not apply to it. Israel objects to a nuclear program on any level as it represents energy independence and, this is key, the ability to emerge as a regional superpower capable of selling resources to neighbouring allies. Presently Oil is the currency to which most middle east nations operate, but if Iran emerged to provide clean nuclear power it would result in many nations being able to not only free up their own oil dependencies by purchasing the resource, but lend them more power against western interests through their increased autonomy. Iran itself would find relief from perpetual sanctions by the US and allies, and in doing so cement its already rising status as a regional power player.

    for the hawks, its also worth noting that Iran has already enriched to 'bombmaking' levels, and never once pursued the weapon. They did this after numerous assassinations of scientists by Israeli mossad, and a cyberattack by western security agencies. Iran is inflammatory, declaring the destruction of zionism (a form of government thats led to the palestinian apartheid, not the underlying religion of judaism) but so to is the US in calling for bombings of iran, iraq, and numerous proxy war states in the past.

    finally, the reason the US wants a deal is because its ability to project power and stability in the region has been delt a crippling blow after iraq and afghanistan, a domestic housing crisis and market collapse. the US understands that, deal or not, Iran will very soon have the ability to take a far more decisive role in domestic and regional politics than Washington can effectively control. the coup-and-replace shuffle doesnt work in south america anymore, as it increasingly doesnt work in the middle east. Think of this as baby steps toward a reconcilliation. The united states has a choice: partner with regional power centers or bleed itself dry for 50 more years protecting an apartheid state and an inconsequential amount of crude oil.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:except the IAEA is still a thing. by Goldsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that a new gadget doesn't actually change anything about nuclear monitoring in Iran. Also, you may want to see what IAEA actually said about Iran before making such a strong statement. You're flat out wrong about the IAEA and Iran. The IAEA repeatedly complained about Iran's lack of cooperation and militarization of nuclear sites. I also think you're underestimating the leverage the Iran had here. The US didn't have a choice, we HAD to make a deal because we lost this fight.

      You can't argue that Iran enriched to bombmaking levels and simultaneously claim they didn't pursue a weapon. Uranium for energy is 4% enriched. Uranium for a bomb practically starts at 20% enriched. Iran took material up to between 19% and 20%. Cute, because research reactors use that grade, but Iran was producing much more 19.75% LEU per month than their research reactors could use in a year. Using this material in an electricity generating reactor is needlessly expensive and wasteful. In sufficient quantities, this material can be made into a bomb, and Iran passed this "sufficient quantity" line a while ago. The purpose of IAEA inspections (and UN resolutions, sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, etc.) was to prevent this from happening. Crossing this line didn't send a message that they're just doing research or working on power systems. The message they sent to the international community is that they effectively had a bomb, and we couldn't stop them. That they then came to the negotiating table willing to throw that material out speaks to their willingness to be a civilized member of global society. Doubters will expect to see some of that material end up in the hands of terrorists, but whether that happens or not is a real test of Iranian intentions. If Iran simply wanted to nuke Israel, they could have done that already.

      It's not likely that they simply want a civilian power industry. If that's so, they're going about this very differently than other countries have. The "normal" way to do power industry uranium enrichment is to run enrichment using a multinational corporate entity "owned" by multiple governments. In this way, regional and worldwide rivals can keep eachother in check while ensuring a domestic, cost-effective supply of uranium. Brazil, Argentina, Germany, the Netherlands and Japan all have civilian power industries without weapons programs and without nationalized uranium enrichment. Each of those countries went through this transition to regional nuclear (electricity) power without the drama and dangerous actions Iran has taken (kicking out the IAEA inspectors).

      Now, it's completely absurd to argue that Iran will make money off of enriching uranium, the market is not there, and will not develop in the foreseeable future. The worldwide capacity for uranium enrichment is far in excess of what the power industry needs. After Fukushima, there is a huge surplus of power-grade uranium out there. Russia, in particular, runs it's enrichment factories well below capacity. Russia would love to supply uranium all over central Asia.

      It is also absurd to argue that that Iran would be unable to create a domestic source of uranium for electricity using the international standard structures. Several other regional power level countries have done this. Early in negotiations, when everyone thought Iran simply wanted a power industry, Russia offered to partner with them in the normal way. It would make sense for Iran to partner with other regional powers getting into nuclear energy (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan) as well. That we don't see the typical partnership out of this strongly implies that Iran wants more than a power industry. They want to be treated like part of the "nuclear weapon club" without triggering immediate war with Israel by actually testing a bomb.

      None of this means that the deal with Iran is bad, but everyone needs to be realistic about what's really going on. Iran has effectively had a bo

  3. And do what? by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When antineutrinos are found, Iran will be sent a strongly worded letter protesting the resumption of their nuclear weapons program.

    1. Re:And do what? by smoothnorman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then, according to this inchoate treaty, (and many others like it), a demand would be made to inspect the site to prove no violation was underway. If there was no proof provided or allowed, then sanctions would be restored, or even military action taken, (as some warmongers desperately want already done immediately). But yet somehow i fear this simple honest reply wasn't the one that you were actually curious about?

  4. Who's gonna monitor the Saudi and Egyptian nukes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now that Iran is going to get nukes, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to try to get them, too.

    And thanks to Obumble's fecklessness with Ukraine (provoke a regime change that you know will lead to war, then run away), there isn't any country on Earth that is going to be willing to give up nukes ever again.

    This isn't the Hope and Change you expected, now is it?

    - Massive surveillance state
    - "Extrajudicial" killings of US citizens
    - Regime change in Libya that led to one of the worst failed states ever (and you thought Iraq was bad? But we can't publicized The Won's FAILURE in Libya, now can we?)
    - "The JV" in control of 3/4 of Syria and 1/3 of Iraq and inspiring if not actually conducting terrorist attacks inside the US.
    - Iran nuclear deal where Iran gets out from under crippling sanctions for paper promises they're going to walk away from (aka taqiya)

  5. let me get this straight by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Iran gets 24 days warning before any inspection and has sites that can't be inspected at all .

    These short range detectors are going to help how ? All they have to do is move the material around.

  6. And what was wrong with keep sanctions on Iran? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obama's straw man was the only alternative to this deal was to allow Iran getting nukes because we couldn't stop them.

    We still can't stop them, but we've removed sanctions.

    And isn't it nice that with Congressional approval still required, Obama's saying that if Congress disapproves the deal, Iran still gets out from under sanctions?

    WHAT THE FUCK?

    Did Obama just negotiate an agreement subject to Congressional approval that's still in force even if it's not approved?

  7. You know what would have been easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You know what would have been even easier than trying to detect a particle we don't even know really exists?

    NOT LETTING THEM BUILD A BOMB IN THE FIRST PLACE!

    I mean, great job, Obama, according to your own advisers, you've given Iran a one-year path to building an atomic bomb. Maybe we should have kept the framework in place that was actually working at preventing them from building nukes?

    Oh, and I note that the article claims that these "anti-neutrino" detectors could be available as soon as two years from now. Which is notably after the one-year "breakout" period Obama himself says Iran will need to finish a bomb. (The idea being that they won't be able to hide it from us over that year. You know, because that worked so well with North Korea.)