Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran's WMD - Still No Evidence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by WorldCitizen View Post
    Their omission to report their Uranium enrichment program to the IAEA was wrong, but it wasn't illegal or illicit, and the IAEA hasn't ever referred to it as such. And they obtained the UF6 from China sisn't they? Another NPT signatory, right? And hasn't all of their UF6 been under IAEA containment and supervision since?
    So the treaty isn't a legal document? Last time I checked, when you don't follow a legal document, said activities are deemed to be illegal.

    Also, UF6 is the outcome of uranium enrichment. You originally start out with yellowcake, which is from Iranian uranium mines.

    Originally posted by WorldCitizen
    I'm just struggling to understand what it is we hate about Iran so much. There are far more dangerous nations in the region, with far more highly devleoped nuclear capabilities.
    First, I suspect that few folks here hate Iran. However, the regime (not the people) are seen as a threat to the stability of the Middle East and the world. As a regime with slipping prestige domestically, the chances of provocation outside its borders to redirect attention from within its borders is an increasing probability. Of course, I'm sure its well timed illegal kidnapping of British sailors in international waters without cause was simply a rogue element. However, if you want to understand the concern, then think about how a nuclear equipped Iran changes the security posture in the region by all players.

    Originally posted by WorldCitizen
    Is it because they *actually* signed up to the NPT, unlike, say...Israel for example?
    So Israel didn't violate a treaty and Iran does, but Israel is supposed to be the danger here? Does not compute.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Shek View Post
      So Israel didn't violate a treaty and Iran does, but Israel is supposed to be the danger here? Does not compute.
      Well, ask yourself this: If Iran withdrew from the NPT, as they are permitted to do, would they cease to be a threat, in your eyes?

      If yes, then your threat assessment of Iran is based purely on legal documents, rather than on facts on the ground, which is a bit weird.

      If no, then you are entertaining a double standard.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by WorldCitizen View Post
        What was their motivation indeed?

        Are we talking about the same 15 page Uranium Metal Document that literally 'fell out' of an old dusty box of files the the IAEA was allowed to look through?

        Are we talking about the same 15 page Uranium Metal Document that only outlined procedural requirements for casting uranium into hemispheres, not the technical specifications that would have been necessary to carry out the operation, as the IAEA report of Nov. 18, 2005, noted?

        Are we talking about the same issue that the IAEA in its Nov. 15, 2007, report said the issue had been resolved to its satisfaction?

        Didn't the report conclude:

        Not really the smoking gun of an illegally sought Warhead design you make it out to be, is it?
        Your quote from the 2007 report refers to the P-1 centrifuges, not the blueprint for the core of a warhead. Sorry, no cigar.

        Paragraph 14 from Section E of the latest report shows that Iran still has not resolved this issue to the IAEA's satisfaction:

        http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Doc...gov2008-15.pdf
        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by WorldCitizen View Post
          Not really the smoking gun of an illegally sought Warhead design you make it out to be, is it?
          The IAEA is concerned with cascades.

          However, if it is the smoking gun you want,

          washingtonpost.com: Libyan Arms Designs Traced Back to China

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by WorldCitizen View Post
            Well, ask yourself this: If Iran withdrew from the NPT, as they are permitted to do, would they cease to be a threat, in your eyes?

            If yes, then your threat assessment of Iran is based purely on legal documents, rather than on facts on the ground, which is a bit weird.

            If no, then you are entertaining a double standard.
            False dichotomy and strawman.

            My threat assessment is based on the regime. A nuclear armed India doesn't worry me. A nuclear armed Pakistan currently doesn't worry me, although if the government (and hence nukes) fell into the hands of a different regime, that can change. A nuclear armed Israel doesn't worry me. A nuclear armed France doesn't worry me. Etc., etc., etc.

            The fact that Iran violated the NPT demonstrated intent, which only strengthens the assessment. Do you want a theocracy based on any religion to be nuclear equipped?

            A great question which you still avoid is why will other Middle Eastern nations pursue nuclear weapons if Iran gets one? An even more interesting question is why do these same nations not pursue nuclear weapons when your apparent choice of a threat, Israel, has them? Those nations most "threatened" by Israel apparently aren't threatened.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Shek View Post
              Your quote from the 2007 report refers to the P-1 centrifuges, not the blueprint for the core of a warhead. Sorry, no cigar.
              Nice try. But I actually read these reports. Paragraph 11 concludes section A.1.2 and refers to the statements in the previous 3 paragraphs relating to the acquisition of the P1 centrifuges. As we know, The Uranium Metal Document was added as a sweetner to the deal, and paragraph 9 details Iran's position on this. So paragraph 11 refers to the statements made in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.

              Maybe now the "AQ Khan! AQ Khan" chants will stop, in appreciation of the fact that there's nothing to see here, move along...

              Paragraph 14 from Section E of the latest report shows that Iran still has not resolved this issue to the IAEA's satisfaction:
              Again, nice try, but that's not what it says. If you follow the citations, you'd see that they are satisfied with Iran's role in this, they are currently more interested in Pakistan's role.

              Your smoking gun is now your damp squib.

              Comment


              • #22
                Let Iran have nukes for all I care, if anything it will cool down the atmosphere between them and Israel and the US.

                Everyone knows, or everyone worth talking to, knows that the "wipe Israel off the map" was a mistranslation that has snowballed into crazy sh*t!

                I can't see why Iran would directly or indirectly nuke Israel, it would spell the doom for Iran forever. It wouldn't exactly go down well with Israel's neighbours either. It wouldn't play out nice for the Palestinians, and I'm sure the owners of those very holy Islamic sites within Israel wouldn't appreciate it either. Did I mention that Iran would cease to exist (for a very long time, possibly forever) if they even tried?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  The IAEA is concerned with cascades.

                  However, if it is the smoking gun you want,]
                  I appreciate fact based debate as much as the next man, but please quote sources, not newspaper clippings.

                  Anything else to replace the damp squib?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by WorldCitizen View Post
                    I appreciate fact based debate as much as the next man, but please quote sources, not newspaper clippings.

                    Anything else to replace the damp squib?
                    In case you've missed it, the article directly quoted Albright

                    "This design would be highly useful to countries such as Iran and North Korea," said Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security has studied the nonconventional weapons programs of both states. The design "appears deliverable by North Korea's Nodong missile, Iran's Shahab-3 missile and ballistic missiles Iraq was pursuing just prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War," he said.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Shek View Post
                      A great question which you still avoid is why will other Middle Eastern nations pursue nuclear weapons if Iran gets one? An even more interesting question is why do these same nations not pursue nuclear weapons when your apparent choice of a threat, Israel, has them? Those nations most "threatened" by Israel apparently aren't threatened.
                      Are you seriously telling me that those nations who suffer most at the hands of Israel wouldn't snap up a nuclear deterrent if one was offered to them? Seriously?

                      In answer to your question; yes, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I would expect that other nations in the region would want to follow suit. But you seem unable to appreciate that Israel took the first step here, not Iran. Do you think we'd be having this discussion today if Israel didn't have nukes?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by WorldCitizen View Post
                        Are you seriously telling me that those nations who suffer most at the hands of Israel wouldn't snap up a nuclear deterrent if one was offered to them? Seriously?

                        In answer to your question; yes, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I would expect that other nations in the region would want to follow suit. But you seem unable to appreciate that Israel took the first step here, not Iran. Do you think we'd be having this discussion today if Israel didn't have nukes?
                        I don't think the Arab nations are threatened by the undeclared Israeli nukes. I also think that Iran is not concerned by Israel, but by the Arab nations and the West. Removing Israeli nukes doesn't change the equation.
                        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          The IAEA is concerned with cascades.

                          However, if it is the smoking gun you want,]
                          Sigh, alright, I'll lower myself.....

                          Yep, as I thought. Not a single fact in there that equates to Iran's smoking gun. Shocker.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What the hell? We have proof of what the package is sold by AQ Khan. We have proof that Iran brought that package from AQ Khan. What more do you want?

                            In case you're wondering who Albright is?

                            David Albright

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              What the hell? We have proof of what the package is sold by AQ Khan. We have proof that Iran brought that package from AQ Khan. What more do you want?
                              Sigh. I'm sorry OoE. I don't have my OoE goggles with me today. Could you spell out your argument, so that simple men such as myself can follow it? I'm afraid you're not making much sense.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by WorldCitizen View Post
                                Nice try. But I actually read these reports. Paragraph 11 concludes section A.1.2 and refers to the statements in the previous 3 paragraphs relating to the acquisition of the P1 centrifuges. As we know, The Uranium Metal Document was added as a sweetner to the deal, and paragraph 9 details Iran's position on this. So paragraph 11 refers to the statements made in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.
                                And the language in the paragraph refers specifically and only to the P-1 centrifuges, not to the warhead core blueprint. You have to go to the section specifically dedicated to that subject, which is section A.3 and follows after A.1.2.

                                Originally posted by WorldCitizen
                                Maybe now the "AQ Khan! AQ Khan" chants will stop, in appreciation of the fact that there's nothing to see here, move along...

                                Again, nice try, but that's not what it says. If you follow the citations, you'd see that they are satisfied with Iran's role in this, they are currently more interested in Pakistan's role.

                                Your smoking gun is now your damp squib.
                                Sorry, but the IAEA specifically requires Iran to answer the mail on the question and is not satisfied in the May 2008 report. The language is quite plain and easily understood. It's not 2007 anymore, so the 2007 report isn't the latest. The question to Pakistan in 2007 is addressed in the May 26, 2008 report, in paragraph 25, where it states that Pakistan confirmed that an identical document exists in Pakistan, which essentially corroborates in not so many words that it came from the AQ Khan network. Here's the exact language that demonstrates that the focus is on Iran and that the issue is not settled.

                                In addition to the implementation of Iran’s Additional Protocol, for the Agency to provide assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, Iran needs to, inter alia: resolve questions related to the alleged studies (GOV/2008/4, para. 35); provide more information on the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document (GOV/2008/4, para. 19); clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related (GOV/2008/4, paras 40–41); and clarify the production of nuclear equipment and components by companies belonging to defence industries (GOV/2004/11 para.37, GOV/2004/34 para.22).
                                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X