Iran: A Bridge too Far?

[Mazer]

Contrary to what all you Bush haters think, this report doesn't say, nor does it use language that implies, that Bush is a liar. It simply explains that Iran's continuing nuclear research program lacks the intent to build a nuclear weapon. That's perfectly believable, given that Iran has almost no ability to refine its own oil and economic conditions have led them into the greatest energy crisis in their history. But the fact is that Iran is still pursuing the technological ability to build a nuclear weapon. They may claim, when they build their first nuke, that it was an accidental byproduct of their 'peaceful' nuclear program which it very well could be because the technology to build a nuclear power plant is pretty much the same as the technology to build a nuke. Despite what the media says about this report, and despite how Bush has responded in kind, Iran continues to refine uranium and it continues to prevent international inspectors from investigating their claims. This report should have come from the IAEA, instead it came from the National Intelligence Board because Iran prefers to keep its 'peaceful' nuclear program under wraps.

Now I'm not suggesting any action at this point, especially not an invasion of Iran, but you guys should probably read the report, read its careful vetting and cautionary language, before you assume that it's a vindication of your unquestioning hatred.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

...before you assume that it's a vindication of your unquestioning hatred.

i question my extreme dislike of bush regularly and the facts vindicate it just as often. it's you bush lovers who clearly need the reality check.

- js.

[Mazer]

I'm no Bush lover, Jack, except by comparison to you.

[multi]

They may claim, when they build their first nuke, that it was an accidental byproduct of their 'peaceful' nuclear program which it very well could be because the technology to build a nuclear power plant is pretty much the same as the technology to build a nuke.

Accident?

I have always been under the impression the steps needed to create the components for a nuclear warhead are vastly more complex than those of nuclear power generation... I believe a lot of it is to do with the refinement process of the uranium ?

It's always going to be hard to decipher the truth amongst all the propaganda when it comes to facts on nuclear weapons, so the level of technology and science might not be as much as I would imagine ... but I sure I have heard repeatedly that it needs to be pretty high.

[Mazer]

To make fissile material generate heat in a chain reaction is easy. Example: the first nuclear reactor was little more than a pile of uranium surrounded by a hand-stacked wall of graphite bricks. But making use of nuclear energy efficiently, safely, and controllably does take a high degree of sophistication. So I'm not saying that the bar for making nukes is low, I'm saying that Iran has set the bar high for themselves. It wouldn't be too far out of their way to build a nuke once they got a reactor online.

[multi]

The nuclear properties of plutonium-239, as well as the ability to produce large amounts of nearly pure plutonium-239, led to its use in nuclear weapons and nuclear power. The fissioning of an atom of uranium-235 in the reactor of a nuclear power plant produces two to three neutrons, and these neutrons can be absorbed by uranium-238 to produce plutonium-239 and other isotopes. Plutonium-239 can also absorb neutrons and fission along with the uranium-235. Plutonium fissions provide about one-third of the total energy produced in a typical commercial nuclear power plant. The use of plutonium-239 in power plants occurs without it ever being removed from the nuclear reactor fuel, i.e., it is fissioned in the same fuel rods in which it is produced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_239

I see...
yes, it is easier than I thought

Is the difficult part is getting it all to fit in a bomb then?

[multi]

Ahmadinejad, however, has suckered the west into a confrontation for his own reasons. He has derailed Iran's economy, squandering record oil profits and paralysing the banks. He has alienated his core support among the poor. He has brazenly attempted to rig clerical institutions, the machinery that turns out Shiadom's future leaders, so as to consolidate his rule. Such an audacious plan, from a man who could once do no wrong, has triggered a momentous fight-back from affronted clerics and senior political figures.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2224061,00.html

hmm..

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by multi

I see...
yes, it is easier than I thought

Is the difficult part is getting it all to fit in a bomb then?

That would make sense, although hiding such activity would be easy since it only takes a few smart men in one room together to build a bomb.

[multi]

Rudy Giuliani was counting on Iran as a weapon of mass distraction in the '08 race. But the flailing Republican right has just been disarmed.


Dec. 11, 2007 | The conclusions of the latest National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran's lack of a nuclear weapons program will have a profound impact on the 2008 presidential campaign. The report may well prove a key element in throwing the election to the Democrats. Republicans have used the alleged nuclear threat posed by Iran to scare the American public and to turn attention away from Iraq, economic troubles and Republican scandals. But the NIE findings have pulled the rug out from under the Grand Old Party.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani initially dismissed the NIE, but on Sunday he backtracked substantially on "Meet the Press." He said of Iran, "And of course we don't ... want to use the military option. It would be dangerous; it would be risky." He added that it would be even more dangerous if Iran did acquire nuclear weapons, but immediately put on a mien of sweet reason: "We should utilize sanctions. We should utilize as much pressure as we're capable of." Now he represented the military option as a tool of diplomacy.

This is, of course, the same Rudy Giuliani who while campaigning has all but pledged to bomb Iran if elected. It is a "promise" and not a "threat," he has said, that if Tehran appears close to getting a bomb, he will "set them back eight or 10 years." While Giuliani hasn't specified how he would do so, he likely means launching military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities such as the one at Natanz. That message has been accompanied by bluster from Giuliani worthy of a World Wrestling Federation ham in spandex: "We will not beg to negotiate with them. We're going to make them beg to negotiate with us." Such Hulk Hogan-style boasts may play to the Republican base, but Giuliani now seems more aware of the possibility that the war-weary public may not embrace his reckless bravado if he wins his party's nomination for the general election.
...More