Germany slaughtered 6 million human beings
Japan Slaughtered some 500,000 Chinese for no reason including 300,000 in Nanking alone...not to mention some 200,000 POWs.
Why are these 2 countries still allowed to be countries?
The 2 bombs dropped killed less people than the Tokyo firebombings yet no one mentions that or the above...so son whats your your response?
Do you know what a WMD is? I'll tell you. A WMD is a weapon that when used will cause great or mass harm to a population or cause great or mass destruction to a city or population.
If you go back and browse you will find that that MANY of the IEDs used by the enemy were in fact WMD artillery shells that had mustard gas or other chemical weapons in them. The US Army found some 60 drums of Mustard Gas in either 2005 or 2006 hidden in the middle of no where and was found only because there were dead animals lying around it. A chemical weapon is in fact a WMD. And god knows that Iraq had tons and tons of chemicals.
It's about time to wake up and read some books.
Admittedly, getting the arab public to see it this way is likely to be challenging.
If Iran succeeds the NPT is in danger, i would think this is the bigger issue.
Iran breaking the NPT remains the cassus belli for any action. Though corective actions might not wait that long.
All this rhetoric about blackmail to Israel & the Arabs is just a pretext or spin to act against Iran.
The core issue always was and will be the sanctity of the NPT.
The only thing that stands in the way of a more nuclearised world or a free-for-all between sellers & buyers. Pakistan offering help to the arabs is just one instance of it. The result is a much more uncertain and dangerous situation worldwide. This is the driving factor to push against Iran.
Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Jan 12, at 13:43.
Cut the crap, neutralise their ability to lauch a nuke. The world will not be a better place if Iran has the ability. Strike now, before its to late and let the likes of 'Bigfella' whine about the fact after it is done.
Double Edge, et al,
I'm sure that this is a concern, but not the underlying factor.
The importance here is that nothing new has been discovered since the publication of the 2011 NIE. Thus it would not alter the DNI summation that:
The IRGC-QF and the Iranian MIOS will continue to collect on CNWDI and purchase functional technology as it may become available. This is a normal function of positive intelligence activities; not unique to Iran. This does not mean that Iran has an active and coordinated Nuclear Weapons Program. It just means that they scavenge what has been proliferated by Nuclear Capable nations. And scavenging activities are a symptom of a non-existent or troubled program grasping at any opportunity to cobble together something. But don't mistake this for a Nuclear Weapons Program; it is not.
First a true (No Crap) Story.
Any country or organization that has a decent crop of Physicists, and Iran fits this bill, with time and money, can design, fashion the components and construct a device of some magnitude, in a couple of years (probably less now). And remember how long these Middle Eastern countries have been considering this.In 1964 the U.S. Army decided to see just how difficult it was (to build a bomb). They hired two professors that had Ph.Ds in physics, but no experience with nuclear weapons or access to nuclear secrets. The two were given the task of designing an atomic bomb using only information available to the general public. It took them roughly two years, but in the end they designed an implosion style weapon that could have been made in a local machine shop which could have produced an explosion similar to the Hiroshima bomb.
SOURCE: The UnMuseum - How to Build an Atomic Bomb
The UnMuseum - How to Build an Atomic Bomb
The true problem is the acquisition of the fuel and prototype testing. Our guys had a serious problem with this. Uranium 235 is very rare. And the Enrichment Process (separating the it from other isotopes) is the key factor. Build the device, you can do in your garage. Fueling the device requires a major factory. Or, you start with Plutonium and process it. But that is, as well, difficult to come by and even more difficult to work with. Just a whiff of it will take you down. Basically this is the "Breeder Reactor" issue.
If the Iranians wanted a device, then they probably have that capability already. They just need fuel. With the amount of time they have had to work on the problem, they could have a half-dozen or so devices. That portion of the project is easy. You don't need to have a program specifically for that.
After that, they need a delivery system. The BM-25 might just be big enough to carry the load, with a modified warhead.
Then - you need to either enrich the fuel yourself -- of scavenge for it. The most important aspect is the fuel and not the scientist.
With the exception of the fueling issue, the rest of it can be cobbled together in relative ease. We've known that you could build a bomb in a garage since before my Vietnam Days. There were rumors of the Soviet "Suitcase Bomb" for decades. When I was a young CI Agent, this was the biggest boogieman. Over the last decade, I've spent about seven years in the Middle East and Persian Gulf Region. Today's boogieman is the terrorist with fissionable materials. With fissionable materials, you do not need a Nuclear Weapons Program. Just a couple of reasonably good scientist and a machine shop.
It is fortunate for us, that the manufacture of fissionable materials is so very difficult. And that is what the UN Inspection Regiment is really looking for. And it takes a lot of effort to make it. But if the scavengers find weapons grade plutonium on the open market, then --- it could be easily hidden. That is what "Proliferation" is really all about.
The IAEA has, essentially, audited and verified that all the Iranian nuclear material that has been processed - has been properly accounted for in each year of inspection.
There has been much ado (about nothing) in the Iranian denial of access to certain facilities. The Iranians are not part of that Protocol, and it is not likely that they will sign on to that protocol, given the current diplomatic climate.
When speaking about "enrichment," it is important to note that there are generally 4 levels or categories of material.
- Natural U-235 is mined at about 0.8% to 0.7%
- Low Level enrichment takes the natural U-235 (0.7%) and bring it up to:
- 3.5%-to-5% (typically)
- 15-to-20% (Premium)
- Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) above 20% to about 80%
- Weapons Grade Material is above 80% but usually in the 90%-95% range.
Recently, the Iranians have implied that they intend to begin enrichment to the near 20% Level. This is the level of material that is used for newer Medical Devices and Scientific Research Projects. What ever it might be used for, it is nowhere near at the refinement level necessary to make a weapon.
Remeber, all U-235 enriched beyond the 20% is classed as: HEU. But not all HEU is weapons grade material. This is a very important distinction. It takes a lot of work, and equipment (huge) to bring U-235 up to the 90% range. And this is very difficult to hide.
There is no reason (YET!) to believe that the Iranians are going there. But the Iranians do want the world to know they can get there from here.
Just My Thought ---
Maybe someone can enlight me...
If Iranians are developing civilian only nuclear program... why on earth they refuse (or to put it more correctly - resist) IAEA's inspections?
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Double Edge, Doktor, et al,
Oddly enough, these are very similar questions.
(COMMENT)Originally Posted by 2 Separate Contributions
Everyone remembers the last time "Wolf" was called. No one (especially the P5+1) wants the déjà vu of that fiasco.
Whether or not Iran has a CNWDI Program, or not, is not the issue. It is Iran's single gold bargaining chip. It is all about what Iran will give-up, in turn, for what it wants. The US will not give-up the military hegemony over the Persian Gulf. And it certainly does not want the Persian Fleet to replace it in Bahrain.
We all talk as if the motive for the bombing was to retard the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program. And the P5+1 make proposals that they know Iran will not accept.
It is very unclear, if Iran is actually engaged in such a program. I am given to understand that "we" (the US) don't actually have any information that pins this down. (Rhetoric aside!)
Originally Posted by The DNI
I am haunted by what happen the last time we (America) proclaimed to the world that someone had proscribed Weapons Program (thousands and thousands of tons - WMD). It wasn't a little mistake --- it was huge.
Originally Posted by David Kay, Director ISG, CIA
Iran, cognizant of all this, is using that uncertainty to gain leverage. It will also leverage the dissidents to the embargo.
(The Doktor's Q: ) Earlier this month, the IAEA Team went back into Iran. Among other things, the will discuss the "Additional Protocols" which Iran has not "ratified" and is not yet subject to and legally bound. The P5+1, knowing what KSA's they've individually contributed believe that Iran's only impediment to having a viable weapon is the issue of fuel (weapons Grade Material). The P5+1 does not want to be held hostage to Iran who, may or may not, be bluffing. But the uncertainty is Iran's only real bargaining chip. It Iran opens up to the "Addition Protocols" (or the equivalent) it will lose its advantage; and come to a decision tree that they are not yet prepared to make.
- If the do have a fuel program (enrichment) for weapons grade material, for an existing design: Do they give it up?
- If they do not have a fuel program (enrichment) for weapons grade material, for an existing design: do they initiate a program?
They know that if the world believes they might have a fast track to HEU/80%+ or Plutonium, that they (Iran) will still have a voice. But if the world believes that Iran is not on the verge of being a nuclear regional power, they lose their voice and listeners.
Iran wants to be the dominate power in the Persian Gulf. They want to be the voice of Islam - the voice of Power, the Republic that made good - commanding the respect of every nation enjoined to pay homage. They want to be the hegemony. This is what they want. Give them this and they will dispense with any Program. But "uncertainty" of where they are and what they are doing plays a key role in this. The UNSC and the IAEA want the additional protocols for inspections simply because they don't know.
This could easily escalate into a Regional Arms Race.
Last edited by RoccoR; 29 Jan 12, at 21:21.
"...I am haunted by what happen the last time we (America) proclaimed to the world that someone had proscribed Weapons Program (thousands and thousands of tons - WMD)..."
Get over it. We're not going to dismantle the C.I.A nor the NSA because of your nightmares. Iraq used WMD on their own. Those leaders remained in power and, given another opportunity to resurrect a dormant program, would have done so for the exact same reasons it had been developed in the first place...unless you really think Saddam had some sort of "come-to-Jesus" revelation in the interim.
Did you find comfort in their stewardship of Iraq?
"...It wasn't a little mistake --- it was huge..."
That latent capability remained. You know that.
"But S-2, are you satisfied now with their removal? Why, look at the civil violence since unleashed by those American dogs of war!?"
Yes. How messy it all is. Instead of state-sanctioned murder we have communal vendetta. Maybe even a civil war.
"...It is all about what Iran will give-up, in turn, for what it wants...Iran wants to be the dominate power in the Persian Gulf. They want to be the voice of Islam - the voice of Power, the Republic that made good - commanding the respect of every nation enjoined to pay homage. They want to be the hegemony. This is what they want. Give them this and they will dispense with any Program."
Sooo,... seem cool to you? You o.k. with the above?
"...And the P5+1 make proposals that they know Iran will not accept..."
Go figure. Given the above is there ANY proposal acceptable to Iran that you might seriously put forward here that will also satisfy the rest of mankind.
"...It is very unclear, if Iran is actually engaged in such a program. I am given to understand that "we" (the US) don't actually have any information that pins this down. (Rhetoric aside!)..."
Maybe they do? Maybe they don't? Really? First, you may not be the best judge of such given your nightmares. Instead, you may be pre-conditioned to believe the best of these new ambitious hegemons and ignore the accumulated information and analysis of others. Second, given your lucid if nightmarish assessment of their ambitions can you reasonably suggest that Iran would contemplate those ambitions with nothing more than a pair of 2s in their hand?
What would provide somebody such as you with clarity short of a successful test after-the-fact?
Here's what David Albright said last November-
Is Iran Capable Of Developing Nuclear Weapons-PBS Nov. 8, 2011
"...Well, the background is, this weaponization program was abruptly ended in '03 because of international pressure. Pressure on Iran does work.
And what was visible at the time was Iran shutting down and we called it suspending its uranium enrichment program and agreeing to additional inspections, and was very cooperative. As part of that, they made a decision to hide the nuclear weaponization program, to disassemble it in a certain way and try to make it go away so the inspectors couldn't find it.
Unfortunately, the negotiations that were part of that process didn't bear fruit. And you can blame all kinds of sides in that, but they didn't bear fruit. And Iran broke with the suspension. And I think most countries in Europe, for example, that are involved in this issue thought that Iran's weaponization program also restarted, albeit at a smaller level.
The United States took the position that it had not restarted. The IAEA today takes the position that, yes, there is evidence that indeed it did restart.
...No, their enrichment program isn't working very well. And the report today shows they continue to have problems. They're more slowly deploying the advanced centrifuges than Iran had intended. So, the long pole in the tent, the ability to make weapon-grade uranium, is not going so well in Iran.
What we don't know is how much progress has Iran made on weaponization? But the evidence supports that they're not able to build a reliable warhead to put on a ballistic missile, that they didn't finish that work in 2003 and it remains unfinished today."
Now, the report is available to all. I'm sure you've read it-
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran-Report by the Director General 18 November 2011 If so, can you explain this-
"...42. The information which serves as the basis for the Agency’s analysis and concerns, as identified in the Annex, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations involved, and time frames.
43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).
44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons..."
In sum, the report and its annex is damning. Your comment suggesting it is very unclear simply cannot be written with any semblance of credibility in light of this report. Simply. Cannot. Be. Written.
I await your dissemblance, obfuscation and/or subterfuge to diminish this report's credibility or, alternatively, concession that Iran is, indeed, up to no good and must be stopped.
I can't imagine you'll admit they're up to no good but should be permitted achievement of their goals anyway. Then again, nothing surprises me any longer.
Last edited by S2; 30 Jan 12, at 01:59.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
True - more of the same work that took it to 20% How huge is the equipment? I don't agree with this - enrichment equipment isn't huge these days - it was back in the early days. A modern isotope centrifuge could fit in a residential basement.It takes a lot of work, and equipment (huge) to bring U-235 up to the 90% range.
Why?And this is very difficult to hide.
Why? If they can enrich Uranium - why couldn't they take it to 95% weapons grade?There is no reason (YET!) to believe that the Iranians are going there.
There are multiple ways to enrich Uranium - for example: gaseous effusion, centripital separation, and laser separation. Of these only gaseous effusion takes a large installation. It is well known that Iran uses centrifuges - these can be installed in smaller facilities - to produce large amounts - they only need to build a large number of small installations. Laser separation processes are even more compact, and this method has been around for quite some time, the physics principles are in the public domain - why couldn't they also be using this method?
Weaponization is a relative thing - they can cause lots of damage with a shipping container size device (it wouldn't be that hard to get it into a port or harbor - it could even fit in a truck) - a small ballistic missile warhead may be a long ways out for them, but a working device with a kiloton range yeild is still a weapon - even if it doesn't fit on a missile. Their inclination to support terror has been proven - and even a bulky device can be a terrorist weapon. Remember too - this isn't the 1940's or 50's, they aren't going to have all the technological challenges that the original Manhattan Project had - there are inexpensive computers - advanced machining techniques, materials and many other things that didn't exist back then - and these things are commercially available these days and not even very expensive. They don't need to build an Oak Ridge.
Just because we don't have photos, to display here, of them doing a distributed enrichment effort is no assurance that they aren't.
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
I'm sorry-what's your degree and where is it from?
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Before, you had suspicions, after the nov IAEA report you have some substance to back up those suspicions.
Interview: Focus of Iran visit is on "possible military dimension": IAEA chief | Xinhua | Jan 29 2012
Very subtle.In answer to questions about some ambiguities over the report, the IAEA chief said, "It (the report) does not say Iran has nuclear weapons. It does not say that Iran has decided to develop nuclear weapons."
"However, the report says that we have the information that indicates that Iran has engaged in activities linked with the development of nuclear explosive devices. Therefore, we have required Iran to clarify these issues," he said.
Maybe the current meeting of the IAEA officials in Iran might clarify more.
Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Jan 12, at 09:58.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)