Nuclear Iran

[Luke Gu]

Sorry，I thought it's another English name of Kim Il-sung or Ooe makes a spelling mistake

[Officer of Engineers]

Is it all diplomatic speak by Russia and France?

Neither France nor Russia is offerring enrichment technology. And current negotiations within th NSG will determine what non-NPT members are allowed to have.

Current feel is that anything weapons related would be denied but somethings like nuclear safety, all should have.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sorry，I thought it's another English name of Kim Il-sung or Ooe makes a spelling mistake

You really need to read carefully. There is a big difference between K. Sundarji and Kim Il Sung.

[Luke Gu]

You really need to read carefully. There is a big difference between K. Sundarji and Kim Il Sung.

I read it carefully。The question is I never saw the name before and the translation tool can't translate it ，so I have to guess who the guy is according to my posts。

[pChan]

The revulsion stems back to WWI and the horror that it created. By treaty, chemical weapons were banned from the battlefield shortly after that war. So much so that during the most desperate hours of WWII, no one used chemical weapons.

That convention, now named the Chemical Weapons Convention, and its sister, the Biological Weapons Convention, deemed the usage of such weapons to be illegal.

Sir,

I remember seeing in a documentary about how Goebbells wanted Hitler to use the sarin gas (in 1944?) but was persuaded against it because the allies can match them in much greater volumes . Even churchill wanted to use the chemical weapons but was opposed by his generals & they settled on an uneasy compromise of no first use.

The reason I mentioned this is modern states may not have all those historic inhibitions that WWII leaders had. Lets assume that iran gives hezbollah a gas weapon and lets assume its used against Israel military causing limited casualties (though I concede that Iran may not be the best example as they themselves had a history with Iraq over chemical weapons but still....) Do you believe that would incur full nuclear retaliation from US/Israel on iran. Because that would seem totally dis-proportionate to the rest of the world but more importantly is that the strategic thinking in US/Israel? Your statement seem to suggest so. If not then it looks like a damn good escalation step with no consequences attached.

[Officer of Engineers]

The reason I mentioned this is modern states may not have all those historic inhibitions that WWII leaders had.

I believe Iran does. There was a strong suggestion that when Khomeni asked for peace was because of Iraqi chemical weapons superiority on the battlefield.

Lets assume that iran gives hezbollah a gas weapon and lets assume its used against Israel military causing limited casualties (though I concede that Iran may not be the best example as they themselves had a history with Iraq over chemical weapons but still....) Do you believe that would incur full nuclear retaliation from US/Israel on iran.

Yes, without a doubt. The US gave a very clear warning that chemical weapons deployment would not be tolerated in the Kuwait War. While there was no explicit threat, the statement that we do not differentiate between nuclear, biological, or chemcial weapons left Saddam very little doubt what the US meant.

Now, whether we can trace the bio-chems back to a nation state is another question. Anthrax, for example, can be found in any manure pile.

[Merlin]

Among the major powers, they do not have common agreement. US is willing to do wide-ranging talk. But EU is asking to talk urgently about nuclear program which Iran has refused.

U.S. accepts Iran's offer of talks with major powers

11 Sept WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Friday it would accept Iran's offer of wide-ranging talks with major powers despite the Islamic Republic's stated refusal to discuss its nuclear program. .....

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana issued a statement in Brussels saying he was seeking an urgent meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to try to resolve Western concerns about Iran's nuclear program.

The U.S. State Department made clear that Solana wanted to arrange a meeting between Iran and senior officials from the six major powers that have been seeking to resolve the nuclear dispute with Tehran.

The United States and its allies suspect Iran's uranium enrichment program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying that the program is solely intended to produce electricity.

The major powers, which include permanent U.N. Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States as well as Germany, offered Iran trade and diplomatic incentives in 2006 in exchange for halt to uranium enrichment.

They improved the offer last year but retained the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, something Tehran has ruled out as a precondition.

Iran on Wednesday handed over a five-page proposal that offered wide-ranging talks with the West but was silent on its nuclear program. ....

[Merlin]

AP has obtained a copy of this 'secret annex'.

IAEA secret report: Iran worked on nuclear warhead

'Secret annexe' to UN nuclear inspection agency report reveals Iran has 'sufficient information' to make a nuclear weapon

18 Sept [Guardian] The UN nuclear inspection agency believes that Iran has "sufficient information" to make a nuclear weapon and had "probably tested" a key component, it was reported last night.

The Associated Press said it had obtained a "secret annexe" to a report on Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which suggests that the agency's experts were more convinced Iran had been trying to make a bomb than its outgoing director, Mohamed ElBaradei, had admitted.

ElBaradei, a Nobel peace prizewinner, who leaves his post at the end of November, has said there is "no concrete evidence" the Iranians had worked on building a warhead. The agency repeated that position last night, in response to the AP report saying there was no "concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons programme in Iran", and that "all relevant information and assessments" are presented to the IAEA member states.

The statement did not comment on the authenticity of the AP document.

ElBaradei has angrily rejected French and Israeli claims that he has withheld important evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons work.

In the document quoted by AP, his inspectors report: "The agency… assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based on HEU [highly enriched uranium] as the fission fuel."

Furthermore the annexe said Iranian scientists had engaged in "probable testing" of explosives arranged in a hemisphere, which is how an implosion type of nuclear warhead is triggered.

There was also evidence, the report says, that Iran had worked on developing a chamber to carry a warhead on top of one of its missiles, "that is quite likely to be nuclear".

The annexe, entitled Possible Military Dimension of Iran's Nuclear Program, gives details of a top-level meeting in 1984 in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then president now supreme leader, appears to give the green light for building a bomb, saying: "A nuclear arsenal would serve Iran as a deterrent in the hands of God's soldiers."

Intelligence agencies in the US, Britain, France and Germany all believe that Iran has worked on developing a nuclear warhead, but they differ on how long that work went on and whether it is still continuing. ....

[Merlin]

More isolation and more sanctions are repeated mentioned by Hillary Clinton to put pressure on Iran.

Frankly speaking, is Iran really concerned about more isolation and more sanctions?

Is Clinton really directing her tough talk to the public in the US and the west ?

Clinton warns Iran: talk to us about your weapons or face isolation

19 Sept [Times] Iran must decide whether to come to the negotiating table or face crippling isolation, the United States warned yesterday as pressure mounted on Tehran over its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, issued the warning as President Obama prepared for a make-or-break week for his ambitious foreign policy agenda.

“We have made clear our desire to engage Iran,” Mrs Clinton said in a major speech before the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week. “Iran must now decide to join us in this effort. There will be accompanying costs for Iran’s continued defiance: more isolation and economic pressure.” .....

[Merlin]

Why Iran's missile tests may not play well in Tehran

The show of force ahead of nuclear talks is a well-tested strategy. But only 1 in 10 Iranians support nuclear weapons, and many question the government's legitimacy after June elections.

28 Sept [CSMonitor] Washington - Amid increasing international support for tougher sanctions on Iran, the Islamic republic launched its longest-range missiles in a show of force ahead of nuclear talks scheduled for Oct. 1 in Geneva.

Iranian state media heralded the successful launch of a new generation of Shahab-3 and Sajjil ballistic missiles, which are capable of reaching Israel, US bases in the Middle East, and southeastern Europe. The launches added to media buzz generated by Tehran's revelation last week that it had been covertly constructing a second uranium enrichment facility. But there are signs that playing the traditional nuclear trump card to rally nationalist fervor may backfire for the regime, whose legitimacy many Iranians have challenged in the wake of June elections. ....

But based on what callers on BBC Persian programs, bloggers, and people on the street are saying, he believes that approach has become "threadbare" in the eyes of the Iranian public. .....

A survey released Sept. 25 confirms the analyst's assessment that many Iranians do not support the pursuit of nuclear weapons, although that was also true prior to the election.

The poll, conducted between Aug. 27 and Sept. 10 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found that two-thirds of Iranians favored precluding the development of nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against Iran. Half of of those polled were willing to halt enrichment activities altogether.

While Iranian views of their government and its foreign policy may have changed, their attitudes toward nuclear weapons have remained largely stable over the past 18 months. A separate PIPA poll from early 2008 and republished just ahead of the June elections found that more than 70 percent of Iranians across the political spectrum – conservatives included – opposed their development. .....