Thread: Iran to 'speed up' uranium enrichment at nuclear plants

Originally Posted by Dubitante

That's not a source. It's what some guy said in a newspaper. It maybe entirely accurate, but without seeing some detailed analysis it's unfounded.

I have news for you. The IAEA has no jurisdiction over war. We will not rely on IAEA reports to make our decisions. Hell, even the UN Inspectors for Iraq did not report to the IAEA.

The intel is accurate.

Originally Posted by Dubitante

Obvious question then. If Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons, why don't they withdraw from the NPT?

It invites war. It would clearly mean that she was developing nukes while enjoying the NPT. If she withdrew now and start her program fresh, like North Korea, then that's a different story. But then again, North Korea sucked at making nukes without outside assistance.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The intel is accurate.

In your view.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It invites war. It would clearly mean that she was developing nukes while enjoying the NPT. If she withdrew now and start her program fresh, like North Korea, then that's a different story. But then again, North Korea sucked at making nukes without outside assistance.

Ha, excellent. So although there's no evidence of an active weapons program, they are inviting war currently because you feel they are violating the NPT. If they withdraw from the NPT, they are also inviting war. Could it possibly be that, like with Iraq, reality will not impinge upon the God given right of the US to wage war?

I'm pretty sure that exercising their legal right to withdraw from the NPT could not be used as a legal justification for military action.

Sources to help discussion:

Latest IAEA report.

About the most damning statement in it is this:

Based on the Agency’s continued study of information which the Agency has acquired from many Member States and through its own efforts, the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. Since the last report of the Director General on 25 February 2011, the Agency has received further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear related activities, which is currently being assessed by the Agency.

Information that they are assessing.

As far as I know, all 16 US intelligence agencies stand by their 2007 assessment that Iran has no weapons program.

Originally Posted by Dubitante

In your view.

No, in the eyes of the P5 and Germany who all stated that Iran had a nuclear weapons program.

Originally Posted by Dubitante

Ha, excellent. So although there's no evidence of an active weapons program, they are inviting war currently because you feel they are violating the NPT.

Changing your stance? First you said that there were no programs whatsoever. Now, you say there's no active weapons program. Unfortunately for you, Qom disproves you in either case. Both China and Russia were pissed about Qom.

Originally Posted by Dubitante

If they withdraw from the NPT, they are also inviting war. Could it possibly be that, like with Iraq, reality will not impinge upon the God given right of the US to wage war?

It could but it's not. Like I said, the intel is accurate.

Originally Posted by Dubitante

I'm pretty sure that exercising their legal right to withdraw from the NPT could not be used as a legal justification for military action.

No, but building nukes is.

As far as I know, all 16 US intelligence agencies stand by their 2007 assessment that Iran has no weapons program.

Are all 16 agencies wrong?

Can you cite your source?

A. The IAEA are not the relevant authority to consider the purchase of warhead blueprints verified; it is not their remit as they are a civil authority and not a military one. B. In the same way they do not have jurisdiction to obtain satellite images - all that they can do is ask for access to facilities that are clearly published (even on this forum). Such access has been denied.

You discount the general paranoia evident in the regime as presumably 'circumstantial' and quote popular opinion polls (for which you provide no evidence). Some of us speak DO speak both formaly and informaly to Government representatives of Arab countries (or at least read the reports of those who do) and I can assure you they are not too happy at Iranian situation. Funny how Al Jazeera is banned only in Iran and Syria?

My main point is that you are failing to connect the dots, so to speak. When you see a certain number of indicators that it's raining outside you would be wise to take an umbrella when leaving the house and Iran has nuclear weapons programme written all over.

No iota of evidence? For the West and Israel to proceed by your criterea of proof we would have to wait until they used a nuclear device, in which case, by the 3 to 1 protocol many Iranians would die.

Sir, if you wish to be pedantic or sleep in a dream world please join CND. All indications point to a weapons programme. We would be insane to disregard the indications.

Originally Posted by Dubitante

Are all 16 agencies wrong?

Can you cite your source?

Can you read? All the agencies state that is that there is no evidence of a continued weapons program, not that there never was one. And the truth is that Iran is now at the stage where she can go no further in her program without weapons materials. Guess what? They're making it.

Originally Posted by snapper

A. The IAEA are not the relevant authority to consider the purchase of warhead blueprints verified; it is not their remit as they are a civil authority and not a military one.

So have they completely ignored a key piece of "evidence"? Does that sound slightly odd to you? It smacks of what became know as the "laptop of death".

Originally Posted by snapper

B. In the same way they do not have jurisdiction to obtain satellite images - all that they can do is ask for access to facilities that are clearly published (even on this forum). Such access has been denied.

You're quite probably right. Has such a request been made by the IAEA? Was this request denied? Can you point me at the appropriate report?

Originally Posted by snapper

You discount the general paranoia evident in the regime as presumably 'circumstantial' and quote popular opinion polls (for which you provide no evidence).

I linked to the original poll at the Brookings Institute. What else could I do with regards evidence? Contact the people questioned in the poll and ask them again?

Originally Posted by snapper

Some of us speak DO speak both formaly and informaly to Government representatives of Arab countries (or at least read the reports of those who do) and I can assure you they are not too happy at Iranian situation. Funny how Al Jazeera is banned only in Iran and Syria?

That's a pretty healthy contempt for democracy, albeit probably unwittingly. Do these "representatives" represent their people? Or do they represent the interests of their respective regimes? Arab people see the US and Israel as far bigger threats than Iran.

Originally Posted by snapper

My main point is that you are failing to connect the dots, so to speak. When you see a certain number of indicators that it's raining outside you would be wise to take an umbrella when leaving the house and Iran has nuclear weapons programme written all over.

I look out my Window, and I see government officials, leaders and newspaper editors all running around with their umbrellas up. It must be raining I think. But I also see lots of people walking around just holding their umbrellas. This seems a bit odd, so I send 16 intelligence agencies outside to investigate what the weather is. They all report back that it's a sunny day and that the people with umbrellas have them up because they are worried that a cloud might appear and rain on them.

What would you think? Would you put your umbrella up as you walked out? Or not?

Originally Posted by snapper

No iota of evidence? For the West and Israel to proceed by your criterea of proof we would have to wait until they used a nuclear device, in which case, by the 3 to 1 protocol many Iranians would die.

Israel hasn't attacked Iran (yet) with their rogue nuclear arsenal. Israel is a far more aggressive state than Iran, so what are you basing this fantasy on?

Originally Posted by snapper

Sir, if you wish to be pedantic or sleep in a dream world please join CND. All indications point to a weapons programme. We would be insane to disregard the indications.

Sir, you're looking at an ink blot and seeing what you want to see, or what you are told to see.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Can you read? All the agencies state that is that there is no evidence of a continued weapons program, not that there never was one. And the truth is that Iran is now at the stage where she can go no further in her program without weapons materials. Guess what? They're making it.

Which would indicate that they have a weapons program. So you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with 16 US intelligence agencies.

Originally Posted by Dubitante

You're quite probably right. Has such a request been made by the IAEA? Was this request denied? Can you point me at the appropriate report?

I don't know. What about this

Based on the Agency’s continued study of information which the Agency has acquired from many Member States and through its own efforts, the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. Since the last report of the Director General on 25 February 2011, the Agency has received further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear related activities, which is currently being assessed by the Agency.

Originally Posted by Dubitante

Which would indicate that they have a weapons program. So you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with 16 US intelligence agencies.

No, I am disagreeing with you. Enriching uranium has dual uses. One civilian. One military. There is no evidence either way which way this uranium will be used. And it's to Iran's advantage not to disclose and why move to a military fortified centrifuge centre if your intent is peaceful?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I don't know. What about this

Possible activities....currently being assessed...

It says pretty much the same thing in the previous report too. So they're looking at information, and assessing it. That's what they do. I hope I never find myself being convicted of a "possible" offence on information that is currently being "assessed".

Originally Posted by Dubitante

Possible activities....currently being assessed...

It says pretty much the same thing in the previous report too. So they're looking at information, and assessing it. That's what they do. I hope I never find myself being convicted of a "possible" offence on information that is currently being "assessed".

Changing your stance again, I see. Your point was that did Iran denied access. Yes, they did.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

No, I am disagreeing with you. Enriching uranium has dual uses. One civilian. One military. There is no evidence either way which way this uranium will be used. And it's to Iran's advantage not to disclose and why move to a military fortified centrifuge centre if your intent is peaceful?

Is it the opinion of the IAEA that they are enriching weapons grade nuclear fuel? Is it the opinion of the US intelligence agencies? Or is this your opinion?

Threatening their nuclear facilities with a military strike, then criticising them for protecting the facilities?