Iran A-Bomb Complete

[ORAC]

WND: IRAN'S NUCLEAR BOMB PROGRAM COMPLETE (http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/irans-nuclear-bomb-program-complete/) by REZA KAHLILI*

Source reveals secret site, last obstacle is to arm missiles

Iran successfully has built a nuclear bomb with the help of Russia and North Korea and has enough weapons-grade uranium and plutonium for more, according to a source in the Revolutionary Guards intelligence unit. The source, who has access to Iran’s nuclear program, said the Islamic regime is working out of seven nuclear sites, most unknown to the IAEA, and that its nuclear bomb program is complete. North Korea has provided the regime with plutonium for nuclear warheads, the source verified, and the last obstacle to overcome is arming missiles with those warheads.

The source, who revealed the existence of the regime’s microbial plant and its effort on biological weapons as published on Jan. 1 by WND exclusively (http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/8-deadly-agents-to-bring-u-s-to-its-knees/#MJTXR36Myxf6JAYO.99), now has provided information on two of the seven secret sites.

The first is in the town of Khondab near the city of Arak in central Iran where Iran’s heavy-water plant reactor is located, which, once operational, will provide enough plutonium for several bombs just in its first year. WND will soon publish information on the second secret nuclear site, which has direct Russian participation involving laser technology for uranium enrichment. The Khondab site, according to the source, expands on the activity at Iran’s previously secret site in Fordo, about 80 miles away. When the existence of Fordo was revealed in September 2009, much of the nuclear bomb research and equipment was later transferred to Khondab.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/01/KhondabOverview-DigitalGlobe2012.jpg

The new site, in the belly of a mountain, is immune to airstrikes. It has three levels accessible by three elevators. The first level is security, where personnel check in, cell phones, arms and other items are confiscated, IDs are checked and passage allowed. The second level houses the centrifuges and the third level the lab, where work is ongoing on both uranium and plutonium bombs. The uranium enrichment on the second level is in two phases: The first phase has eight cascades of centrifuges into which uranium hexafluoride gas has been fed for enrichment; the second phase has 12 cascades with six already operational and six more being readied.

The planning of the site was approved under former president Mohammad Khatami, but the project was approved by the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and completed over two years ago. Several high-power towers, visible in images, have been installed near the site to provide much-needed electricity for the centrifuges. The electricity flows only to the bottom of the mountain, where entrances have been dug out.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/01/KhondabPowerpolls-DigitalGlobe2012.jpg

“The imagery clearly shows some kind of highly sensitive and fortified installation supporting a deep underground facility inside the mountain,” stated Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a former CIA analyst and executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress. “The exterior facility has a huge security gate and guard post, the entire installation is surrounded by miles of deep trench and berm, like a medieval fortress, with modern security fences and guard posts. “And there are clearly two enormous underground entrances surmounted by a building that may power elevator shafts, escalators or a subway to the underground complex inside the mountain,” he said.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/01/Kgondab-Entrancesandairvents-DigitalGlobe2012.jpg

Of particular interest, Pry said, are the high-tension power lines at the facility. “Whatever is going on inside needs a lot of electricity. Chemical and biological weapons programs have very modest power needs, compared to nuclear weapons programs, which consume enormous amounts of electricity.”

Pry said that Russia, China and North Korea are helping Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and that it is probably no accident that Iran’s underground facilities closely resemble those countries’ setups, which were intended to deceive the West during and after the Cold War. “The discovery of previously unknown underground facilities of such size and potential significance in Iran is further proof that the U.S. is probably underestimating the advancement and sophistication of Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Pry said. “The present policy of negotiation until Iran is caught red-handed moving toward nuclear weaponization is a policy doomed to fail – probably already has failed inside one of Iran’s underground nuclear installations.”

The site is supervised by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, the father of Iran’s nuclear bomb program. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s representative, former defense minister Ali Shamkhani, routinely visits the site. There are 60 personnel working at this site, with four Russian and three North Korean scientists helping the Iranian scientists. Iranian scientists Massoud Ali Mohammadi and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who worked on this Khondab project, were assassinated, Mohammadi in 2010 and Roshan last year. Because of those assassinations, Khamenei has ordered the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security to keep a close eye on all employees at various sites and monitor their movement and communications.

Two missile sites in the vicinity of this nuclear site are hidden underground to protect the site from an airstrike.

Currently more than 2,000 centrifuges are enriching uranium at this facility, with more to be operative shortly. With the failure in three rounds of talks since last April between the world powers 5+1 and Iran over its illicit nuclear program and the regime’s defiance in stopping its enrichment and preventing the International Atomic Energy Agency from inspecting suspect sites, the West is running out of options, the source added. He said the regime believes that ultimately America will have no choice but to accept a nuclear-armed Iran.

WND last October revealed (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secret-iran-nuclear-bomb-plant-expanding/) that regime scientists at another secret site were working on a neutron detonator for a nuclear weapon and warhead design for ballistic missiles.

[*Reza Kahlili served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board authorized by Congress.

[Onceapilot]

They have a "berm"?

OAP

[Heathrow Harry]

source is WND -

WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from the perspective of U.S. conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) and the political right.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#cite_note-NY_Times_5May2009-1) It was founded in May 1997 by Joseph Farah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah) with the stated intent of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power"[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#cite_note-WNDAbout-2) and is headquartered in Washington, D.C

Has recently run a front cover with a picture of President Obama as "America's First Muslim President"

so pretty trustworthy eh???

[West Coast]

Yeah, so?

Covers sell. Newsweek says Obama is the first gay president. Years ago one of the mainstream news mags said Bill Clinton was the first black president, something he's still known as.

Most of the experts I read, of all political persuasions believe that the Iranians end goal is a nuclear weapon and believe that goal isn't far off. Some news source with some agenda and bias in the near future is going to report: a) the facilities just got the sh!t bombed out of them, b) they have the bomb.

[ORAC]

I'd believe it because it presents the view that campaign to stop Iran getting the bomb is lost and, with the number and construction of the sites, any US/Israeli plan to take out the sites would be futile.

I suspect that, being an ex Iranian IRG member, the information was deliberately leaked.

In what possible way does the report support a right wing agenda?

[The Old Fat One]

In what possible way does the report support a right wing agenda?

Given the total bunkum that Blair got the British public to swallow before slinging his lot in with Bush prior to wading into Iraq, that is maybe a somewhat naive question.

Scaremongering has been a mainstay policy of the military-industrial complex for decades past.

That is not to say that the report is not accurate...I would not have a clue as to its integrity, but there open source international agencies which are historically proven to be much more accurate/reliable over this sort of thing.

[West Coast]

What open source international agencies do you refer to?

Everyone has an agenda. No politiic at the IAEA, right?

[Temp Spike]

This is crap. The Iranian bomb is a dud.

[Just This Once...]

Dial any number starting with +972. Did it ring, did someone answer?

Good, now back to sleep.

[N2erk]

As it is a magazine article, it must be suspect.
However, if official government sources made the same statement, it would be a different matter. Like:
the WMDs and pilotless delivery aircraft of Saddam's,
the Iraqi tanks drawn up on the Saudi border just before Gulf War 1, the babies-torn-from-incubators in Kuwait,
the Soviet submarine base, military airfield and warehouse-full of military weapons in Grenada.
Oh- and didn't the Iraqis also have lots of centrifuges??
One can always trust government statements.

[N2erk]

Forgot to add to my last- thanks for the original post ORAC- whether I agree with the content or not, it is good to know what kind of 'information' is being disseminated in 'the media'.

[VinRouge]

If Iran does develop the bomb, why should we care? Perhaps then the Israelis wouldn't go around on their moral pedestal whilst having a bomb themselves.

[Gemini Twin]

You are correct Onceapilot we must concentrate on the berm, it's clearly the weak link.

[LowObservable]

But... what kind of berm is it?

[Gemini Twin]

The kind used on a medieval fortress.

[davejb]

Never mind all that, what about this bit.....

I suspect that, being an ex Iranian IRG member, the information was deliberately leaked.

...when did you retire from the IRG?

[ricardian]

Lowobservable said But... what kind of berm is it?
Possibly Inspector Clouseau's "berm"?

[hval]

Mining operations have recommenced at two uranium mines (Saghand 1 and 2) and a processing at milling plant at Ardakan.

[Pontius Navigator]

I love the idea of bomb proof mountains.

There is more than two ways to skin a cat.

[sisemen]

Methinks f**k up level one and then you have the world's biggest mines rescue site. :E

[Heathrow Harry]

I always find it amusing that WE can be trusted with an A bomb but of course no-one else can - until they get one - like France, India, Israel, Pakistan, China..........

If I was an Iranian politician I'd think it was an absolute requirement to get one ASAP and damn the cost - they are surrounded with people who are armed with the things.

[Trim Stab]

Yep, if I was Iranian I would want my government to get nukes too.

Just look what the US/UK did to Iraq - I bet they wouldn't have dared invade if Saddam had a nuke. Also, Israel has nukes and has a rich recent history of attacking its neighbours.

Iran, on the other hand, has never attacked anybody since biblical times.

Whilst I would prefer that Iran doesn't have nukes, I think we should re-examine our own foreign policy, rather than demonising Iran..

[Pontius Navigator]

I bet they wouldn't have dared invade if Saddam had a nuke.

But he had WMD and long range missiles didn't he?

He did?

Oh, he didn't, sorry pardon.

As said on the Fat Boy thread, capability and intentions are two different things. It might be tempting to use your one bomb on a use it or lose it basis, but when the other side has a good chance of a shoot down and your success probability is unknown, you would be on a hiding to nothing being outgunned by everyone else.

[Courtney Mil]

PN, he didn't have WMD? Is that public domain information or inside information? The facts are that the IAEA et al didn't find any and the "dodgy dossier" made claims that were not backed up by fact in public. I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think anyone can say that he didn't have WMD. Perhaps I'm splitting rabbits.

Your last para is spot on. Wise words as ever.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, I was being sardonic.

[Courtney Mil]

Sorry, PN. I normally love sardonic. I just missed it. What is sardonic? I mean, I know, obviously, but my friend was asking. :\

[TomJoad]

If they have a "berm" surely it can only be a good thing - after all Mr Cameron was only last week singing the praises of the efficacy of our nuclear deterrent. The more detterents in the world = safer world. We should actually be helping all states acquire the deterrent then we can all benefit from them:p

[sisemen]

Iran, on the other hand, has never attacked anybody since biblical times

On the other hand....the muslim nut jobs that seem to run that country have a clearly stated aim to "wipe Israel off the map". And you're happy for them to be armed with nukes? God help us from that kind of thinking.

[Trim Stab]

On the other hand....the muslim nut jobs that seem to run that country have a clearly stated aim to "wipe Israel off the map".

Please make a link to your source on that?

I have not see a single video of Ahmadinejad making such a statement. All the sources I have seen of that statement are from US right-wing press and Israel. Try reading here:

Israel: “Wiped off The Map”. The Rumor of the Century, Fabricated by the US Media to Justify An All out War on Iran | Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-wiped-off-the-map-the-rumor-of-the-century-fabricated-by-the-us-media-to-justify-an-all-out-war-on-iran/21188)

[Pontius Navigator]

Looking at those photos suddenly brought back memories of army training almost 60 years ago.

When you dig in in an observable position, hide the spoil.

Look at the mounds of spoil near each entrance. Bet the analysis have no trouble calculating the size of each excavation and draw up plans accordingly.

[sisemen]

Quote from Trim Stab Please make a link to your source on that?

Happy to oblige:

Ahmadinejad was quoted:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[77]
According the Official Iranian Presidential website, Ahmadinejad's actual phrase was اسرائیل بايد از صفحه*ی روزگار محو شود[78]
[edit]

This translation's use in the media has been criticized.[80] Arash Norouzi, artist and co-founder of The Mossadegh Project, says the statement "wiped off the map" did not exist in the original speech and that Ahmadinejad directed his comment toward the "regime occupying Jerusalem"

[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

However, Trim I would bow to your obviously superior knowledge and I have no doubt that being a professional and skilled translator of Persian you can win us all over with your scintillating argument convincing us that the words of Army Dinner Jacket merely reflected that he is a man of peace and serenity who only wants to invite the Israelis to dinner.

By the way all that stuff is from Wickipedia and took me about 2 nano seconds to find.

[hval]

Trim Stab,

Another example may be seen HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6733487.stm) on the BBC web site. You can not exactly accuse the BBC of being right wing.

Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted by Irna, the official Iranian news agency, as saying: "The hegemony of the occupier regime [Israel] had collapsed, and the Lebanese nation pushed the button to begin counting the days until the destruction of the Zionist regime."

"God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

[Courtney Mil]

All that made me wonder where Global Research is coming from and how ballanced and neutral they are. Not very, it seems. Run by Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky.

committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the new world order

A 2005 article in The Jewish Tribune has criticized GlobalResearch.ca as "rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial."

CRG maintains the website GlobalResearch.ca which is critical of United States foreign policy and NATO, as well as theories concerning the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the war on terror, media disinformation, poverty and social inequality, the global economic crisis, and politics and religion.

Chossudovsky argues that from a military standpoint, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is an operational weapon of mass destruction with the potential to be used against "rogue states", with the power to alter the weather, disrupt regional electrical power systems, and modify the Earth's magnetic field, as well as potentially trigger earthquakes and affect people's health.

Possibly leaning towards anti-American, anti-Israel, so the alternative translation is not that much of a surprise.

[sisemen]

Probably no coincidence that TT gives his location as "the heart of darkness". According to my map that's somewhere between Afghanistan and the UAE :E

[Trim Stab]

Sisemen, excuse me but where in any of those statements does he claim that he wants to nuke Israel? For sure, he wants to change the Israeli regime (along with many other people around the world) but he has never said he intends to do that with a nuke. He has gone on record many times saying that he opposes a two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict (which ironically is in agreement with US and Israel). But whereas Israel and US want to keep Palestinians in a stateless ghetto with no UN seat, no freedom to travel, no possibility to raise their own taxes etc, Iran wants a "single-state" solution whereby all inhabitants of Israel and Palestine territory are united in a one-state democracy. This is all he has ever proposed.

You clearly are somebody who prefers to believe in propaganda - just the sort of citizen Blair and Bush like. I prefer to read around lots of different sources, and it is not too difficult to find out what he really said, even if you don't speak Persian yourself. For example, try reading this analysis by the Washington Post, where they consulted a fluent Persian academic:

Did Ahmadinejad really say Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html)

Here is another academic discussion of what he said:

Debating Every Last Word of Ahmadinejad's 'Wipe Israel Off the Map' - Uri Friedman - The Atlantic Wire (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/10/debating-every-last-word-ahmadinejads-wipe-israel-map/43372/)

Finally, here is the Israeli Deputy PM admitting that Ahmadinijad did not make the claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmffEQmKr8

[sisemen]

Yeh. Whatever. :zzz:

[TomJoad]

So he didn't say it but hey never mind that - the likes of siseman et al won't bother letting truth influence the debate. Have we not seen this before WMD, 14 minute readiness and a dossier !:bored: God preserve us from these idiots.

[Courtney Mil]

Well, well, well. I've suddenly been persuaded that I'm a Dinner Jacket is a totally reasonable democrat, not a basket case. I must have been indoctrinated by BBC propaganda all these years. That'll learn me.

So, I now realize that he wants peace for the Israelis and a democratic, single state, presumably all the regions now called Israel, with a democratically elected parliament in Jerusalem and he'll tell Hamas to calm down.

So he must also know that the Palestinians will withdraw from their position of demanding the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a Palestinian state, either "in place of both Israel and the Palestinian territories, or solely in the Palestinian territories."

And he must know that both the Palestinians and the Israelis will believe that and adopt his moderate and totally reasonable views.

Good. Time to lift the sanctions then and re-establish the embassies. Iran is right back on my holiday list.

[Lonewolf_50]

Courtney, I suspect you'll visit Iran the week after you ski in Hades. ;)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Probably more likely quite a few of Courtney's era will happily visit when a flyable phantom and a B57 come up on ebay :cool:

[Trim Stab]

Courtney - his vision of a "single state solution" is clearly impossible as if it were democratic it would be a Palestinian dominated state, which would be completely unacceptable to the Israelis. However, it is wrong to interpret his proposed solution as meaning that Iran wants to nuke Israel. At least they have made a constructive peace proposal, albeit a fairly unrealistic one.

Part of the reason that Israel continually demonises Iran is to deflect attention from this proposal, and indeed from other more reasonable peace proposals put forward by neighbouring countries eg by the Arab League (Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative)), or the two-state solution supported by the UN.

Israel refuses to accept the single-state solution proposed by Iran, the two-state solution supported by the UN (but vetoed by the USA), and the Arab Peace Initiative. The only future they are prepared to countenance is one where the Palestinians are confined to a ghetto, without freedom to travel or run their own affairs.

[Courtney Mil]

Yes. That is a different issue. But it doesn't suddenly make Iran a stable, reliable state. I think, perhaps, Israel may think that Iran's part in this is another "outside" intarference that they cannot tollerate. They are, maybe understandibly, somewhat paranoid - a Jewish state surrounded by what they see as potential or actual enemies.

[Lonewolf_50]

The fellows at the Collings Foundation have a flyable F-4.

McDonnell F-4D Phantom II - The Collings Foundation (http://www.collingsfoundation.org/tx_f-4dphantom.htm)

The Collings Foundation - Preserving Living Aviation History for Future Generations (http://www.collingsfoundation.org/menu.htm)

Good folks, doing wonderful work.

[Courtney Mil]

Hey, Wolf. You've got my attention.

[Lonewolf_50]

I have a friend who flies with them. Sadly, the Phantom is on a civil, not mil, airworthiness certificate. :{ It and the A-4 are still flying, last I heard.

[LT Selfridge]

Before the thread gets fatally distracted - Thanks Trim Stab.

[sisemen]

TT (and fellow followers).

Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel, that it wishes to see the Jewish people and their State erased, and that Iran is a open supporter of terrorism and militant islamism?

If you don't deny that then perhaps you might tell us what you think is the intention behind Iran's rush to develop nuclear weapons and whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?

[TomJoad]

TT (and fellow followers).

Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel, that it wishes to see the Jewish people and their State erased, and that Iran is a open supporter of terrorism and militant islamism?

If you don't deny that then perhaps you might tell us what you think is the intention behind Iran's rush to develop nuclear weapons and whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?

Do you seriously believe that Iran would use a nuclear weapon directly or indirectly - what would the consequences be on that state? If you do then you must not sleep easy at night with all those monsters lurking under your bed.

Why are they in such a rush to develop the technology, why let me think perhaps for the same reasons we were, together with all the other members of the club. Time and again we are told they give us influence, and of course they are a deterrent. Our argument for holding a nuclear capability can be no less credible when deployed by others - or can it sisemen? :=

Yes Iran is a threat to peace, just as we are so long as we (the west) maintain our intransigence in recognizing that maybe just maybe there is a legitimacy in some of their complaint. Peace imposed is a false hope, the days of constraining people by wielding a big stick above their heads is over - you need to move on. Jaw Jaw not War War :ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

why did Israel build nuclear weapons? because they were surrounded by potential enemies and didn't trust their US allies to save them if the chips were down

Why are the Iranians building nuclear weapons? because they were surrounded by potential enemies and they don't have ANY allies to save them if the chips were down

[Courtney Mil]

HH & TJ,

You've both leapt on just one of Sisemen's questions and ignored the two more relevant bits.

Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel

whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?

I would have thought the answers were obvious. Once you answer 'no' to both of those, it makes your quite plausible answers about their nuclear ambitions slightly less rock-solid, I would suggest.

As for Our argument for holding a nuclear capability can be no less credible when deployed by others

Again, not so clear cut. Notwithstanding the Cold War arms race, I would suggest that our claim of deterrence and contributing to world peace is considerably more credible than Ahmadinejad trying to make the same claim. He is a man with a dubious human rights record, father of the second cultural revolution and who refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. You can hardly argue that he has been honest and open, nor that he has given us the impression of a reliable world statesman. No less credible? I'm not so sure.

[Heathrow Harry]

If you replace "Iran" with "Israel" you get the same question and the same answers - i 'm not happy about either TBH but it's too late now

The cat is out of the bag and I understand why BOTH countries want nuclear weapons - they both act in their own best interests as they see them . I don't think either is somewhere I'd wish to live and and I don't think either is exactly a shining light of good behaviour

[TomJoad]

HH & TJ,

............ I would suggest that our claim of deterrence and contributing to world peace is considerably more credible than Ahmadinejad trying to make the same claim. He is a man with a dubious human rights record, father of the second cultural revolution and who refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. You can hardly argue that he has been honest and open, nor that he has given us the impression of a reliable world statesman. No less credible? I'm not so sure.


Of course you would, and Ahmadadinejad would make the same claim. As has been said elsewhere, we justify our possession of nuclear weapons on the argument that they act as a deterrent to others who possess nuclear weapons or otherwise from doing us harm.


If our weapons deter the likes of Russia, or as Mr Cameron said the other week at Faslane, North Korea, then why would Iran's future nuclear deterrent not give Israel or others likely to visit harm on Iran the same pause for thought. Is Iran (any state for that matter) not as entitled as we are to deter her enemies, real or imagined, in the same fashion as ours do for ours. Unlike the laws of physics it would appear that logic is not a conserved property.

I do not wish to see Iran or any other country acquire nuclear weapons, there are more than enough in the world. However, we will not convince Iran that there is a better road when we defiantly hold on to ours because we believe we are inherently entitled. Let’s reduced this down to the simple schoolyard analogue; big kid says to small kid "you can’t do that cause I said so", small kid says "go **** yourself". The world has outlived the old polar narratives, we need a different engagement.:=

[Courtney Mil]

Why do you think I would, TJ?

[West Coast]

Then I should start searching eBay for some uranium to start my old nuke program. I have a neighbor that I'm not particularly fond of TJ, am I entitled to my own stockpile of nukes assuming I have the wherewithal to do so?

Should nothing be done to stop a a supporter of state terrorism from acquiring buckets of sunshine that might find itself into a Herrods in London likely easier and faster than to a Macy's the US?

[TomJoad]

Why do you think I would, TJ?

Because you hold to the same tired old conceit of deterrence; sorry I thought that was understood.

[maxred]

Should nothing be done to stop a a supporter of state terrorism from acquiring buckets of sunshine that might find itself into a Herrods in London likely easier and faster than to a Macy's the US?

Question...where are the US and the UK, in state sponsered terrorism?

The ever growing issue here is that the West has effectively done nothing, repeat nothing, to contain Israel. Unless someone in the West, and I see nothing happening here with B.O.'s latest hand to Israel, this "problem" is going to be precisely that, a pretty BIG problem, on a scale which makes the recent history, look like a walk in the park.

[West Coast]

I dunno max, why don't you ask the UN? They as a whole and as a subset are far more concerned about Iran than about the UK and the US.

[henra]

Should nothing be done to stop a a supporter of state terrorism from acquiring buckets of sunshine that might find itself into a Herrods in London likely easier and faster than to a Macy's the US?

With this line of thought plus the fact what has happened to Irak and Afghansitan but not to North Korea the 'West' has made possession of Nuclear weapons all the more attractive for countries that are regarded as 'uncooperative'.
Was it rather 'Nice to Have' before, now it is a perceived 'Must'.
Israel possessing Nuclear Weapons and more or less openly showing a desire to attac Iran doesn't help either.

Yes Iran having Nuclear weapons is not an attractive perspective at all.
And yes Iran does not really make the impression they are willing to fight islamic terrorism (this with or without Nukes) - to put it mildly.
But attacking them to prevent possession of Nuclear Weapons or to fight Terrorism (seemingly jusitified or not) is still morally questionable and moreover probably the worst sign you can give them or any other country. They will only try harder afterwards (and will probably be even more supported by China, NK or Russia in achieving this) in order to reach the safe haven (which is having the Bomb).

Also this external pressure helps the more radical forces in Iran enormously for the next elections. Politically you can't help Ahmadinejad any better than threatening Iran with an Attac. This will make sure he will stay in office after the next elections....

[Trim Stab]

Courtney:

Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel

Certainly Iran is opposed to Israel's suppression of the Palestinians into stateless ghettoes, with no viable economic or political future. Iran definitely seeks a resolution for a viable future for the Palestinians. The Iranian proposal for a one-state solution for Israel and Palestine is certainly unlikely to happen, but at least it is a fair proposal. Iran has no stated intention to harm a broader, unified Israel, but certainly it is opposed to the current state of affairs which is akin to the appartheid regime in South Africa, or even to the Nazis treatment of (ironically) Jews prior to WW2.

whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?

Yes, I do feel safe with the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power. Tehran knows that if they were to first launch, they would be annihilated within hours by ripostes by every UNPSC member. By contrast, if Israel were to first launch (which is not out of the question, given their relative instability and history of launching pre-emptive strikes) they could possibly gamble on a US UNSC veto. So who do you think is the greater source of instability in the Middle East?

The world needs to wake up to the fact that Israeli intransigence over negotiating a viable future for the Palestinian people is the root-cause of jihadist violence worldwide.

Israel faces three choices:

1) Accept the UN supported two-state solution.
2) Accept the 2002/2007 Arab League solution.
3) Accept the Iranian one-state solution.

However, instead of countenancing any of these choices, Israel continues to use its powerful lobby in US and UK to suppress the Palestine people into ghettoes and to launch powerful propaganda against Iran.

[Courtney Mil]

Israel faces three choices:

In your view, perhaps, but I suspect they may see it differently.

Because you hold to the same tired old conceit of deterrence; sorry I thought that was understood.

You assume too much. What I said, if you care to read carefully, was a comparison between the stability and responsibility of the UK and Iran as nuclear nations. NOT a statement of where I stand in the nuclear debate.

I am not pursuaded either by the turn in the discussion towards Israel. I am not sure that effectively saying "Look how bad Israel are and they've got a bomb" is justification for Iran to have one.

Before you assume too much again, NO I AM NOT declaring a position that is pro- or anti-Israel.

[TomJoad]

In your view, perhaps, but I suspect they may see it differently.



You assume too much. What I said, if you care to read carefully, was a comparison between the stability and responsibility of the UK and Iran as nuclear nations. NOT a statement of where I stand in the nuclear debate.

I am not pursuaded either by the turn in the discussion towards Israel. I am not sure that effectively saying "Look how bad Israel are and they've got a bomb" is justification for Iran to have one.

Before you assume too much again, NO I AM NOT declaring a position that is pro- or anti-Israel.

Ok .

[Courtney Mil]

Now here’s an obscure link between Iran and Israel that only fellow prog rock enthusiasts would know about – or maybe even care about. Both countries have Camel tribute bands. Iran has a band called Raha (Farsi for Free, formed 2004) and Israel a band called The Humps (perhaps some sort of pun, formed 2006). If you like that sort of thing and you’re not so uptight that you feel the need to boycott anything Israeli, they are both really rather good.

Raha

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/c154.33.413.413/s160x160/40888_141027659277583_7800781_n.jpg

The Humps

http://a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/profile01/152/792a2e7fa223482484d56c62617be5a2/p.jpg

[Waddo Plumber]

Sorry, just noticed this thread and misread it to sound like Whack-a-Mole.

[ORAC]

Hands up who even imagines Oama will perform the "snap-back" on sanctions he promised if there was any indication Iran breached the terms of the agreement? Or thought there was any chance of them observing them? ............. Thought not...........

Iran violated sanctions with missile test, says UN panel (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/16/iran-violated-sanctions-with-missile-test-says-un-panel)

Iran’s firing of a medium-range ballistic missile in October violated international sanctions banning the Islamic republic from launches capable of delivering nuclear weapons, UN experts have said in a new report. The report submitted to the UN security council and seen by the Associated Press on Tuesday said the launch used ballistic missile technology banned under a June 2010 resolution.

The 10 October launch was the first test of a ballistic surface-to-surface missile after Iran and six world powers reached a landmark nuclear deal on 14 July. The security council endorsed the deal in a resolution on July 20 that also called on Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.........

The report said the missile had a range of at least 1,000km (620 miles) and up to 1,300km with a payload of at least 1,000kg and up to 1,400kg. The panel said any missile with a range of 300km (186 miles) and a payload of 500kg was considered capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction.

The United States, France, Britain and Germany asked the security council on 12 October to investigate and take “appropriate action” against Iran for the 10 October missile launch. The 11 December report by experts from the council committee monitoring sanctions against Iran supports the contention of the four countries that the firing violated UN sanctions..Whether the security council takes any action remains to be seen.

The US ambassador Samantha Power has accused some unnamed council members of refusing to take action against Iran for sanctions violations in recent months but said the United States would keep pressing for enforcement. “Instead of an effective, timely response the security council has dithered,” she told a council meeting considering a report from the Iran sanctions committee.

She pointed to the lack of action on the 10 October launch, a visit to Moscow by Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, who is subject to a UN travel ban, and the interception off the coast of Oman of a banned shipment of arms from Iran in late September. “This council cannot allow Iran to feel that it can violate our resolutions with impunity,” Power said, stressing the importance of sanctions enforcement for “a credible, enforceable nuclear deal”.

Under the July nuclear deal most sanctions on Iran will be lifted when its provisions are implemented in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme. But the experts’ report noted that “ballistic missile launches would be covered” under the 20 July resolution.

Iranian defence minister General Hossein Dehghan said at the time of the 10 October launch that the missile, named Emad or pillar in Farsi, was a technological achievement for Iran — able to be controlled until the moment of impact and to hit targets “with high precision”. He said it “will obviously boost the strategic deterrence capability of our armed forces”.

The UN panel said it has not yet investigated a subsequent Iranian ballistic missile launch reported by the media on 21 November and therefore “cannot determine whether it was another Emad test”.

Based on video footage of the 10 October launch, the panel said the Emad delivery system was identified as “the Ghadr-1 medium-range single stage liquid-fuelled ballistic missile”. It said the Ghadr-1 was an advanced version of Iran’s Shabab-3 ballistic missile system and the re-entry vehicle had a guidance system and steerable fins...........

[ORAC]

On a related matter.....

Israel says Arrow 3 missile shield aces test, hitting target in space (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-arms-israel-arrow-trial-idUSKBN0TT0HU20151210)

Reuters: Thursday 10th Dec 2015

JERUSALEM Israel's upgraded Arrow ballistic missile shield passed a full interception test on Thursday, hitting a target in space meant to simulate the trajectory of the long-range weapons held by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the Defense Ministry said.

The success was a boost for "Arrow 3", among Israeli missile defense systems that get extensive U.S. funding. Its first attempt at a full trial, held a year ago, was aborted due to what designers said was a faulty deployment of the target.

"The success of the Arrow 3 system today ... is an important step towards one of the most important projects for Israel and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) becoming operational," said Joseph Weiss, IAI's chief executive officer..........

Arrow serves as the top tier of an integrated Israeli shield built up to withstand various potential missile or rocket salvoes. The bottom tier is the already deployed short-range Iron Dome interceptor, while a system called David's Sling, due to be fielded next year, will shoot down mid-range missiles.........

Defense Ministry and Israeli military will discuss a possible schedule for deployment of Arrow 3, Ramati said, adding that further tests of the system were expected.

[Lonewolf_50]

The United States, France, Britain and Germany asked the security council on 12 October to investigate and take “appropriate action” against Iran for the 10 October missile launch. The 11 December report by experts from the council committee monitoring sanctions against Iran supports the contention of the four countries that the firing violated UN sanctions. Whether the security council takes any action remains to be seen.
Betting the under on that one.
The US ambassador Samantha Power has accused some unnamed council members of refusing to take action against Iran for sanctions violations in recent months but said the United States would keep pressing for enforcement. “Instead of an effective, timely response the security council has dithered,” she told a council meeting considering a report from the Iran sanctions committee. That lady seems to remain naïve even though she's been in that job for a while.

Amusing in a sad way.

[KenV]

One thing that sets my alarm bells off is that this article seems to equate uranium with plutonium. They are vastly different. Not only are uranium enrichment processes very different than plutonium enrichment processes (with the former requiring huge numbers of cascading centrifuges and the latter a nuclear reactor), but a uranium weapon is very very different than a plutonium weapon. The former is relatively simple to build and requires essentially WW1 cannon technology, while the latter is very very hard to build and requires highly complex implosion technology. Something appears to be amiss with that article.

[tartare]

So let's look at this logically.
Iran has actually built a bomb.
And via formal, official channels, we the general public have heard and seen - nothing.
No televised address from POTUS, no highly credible leaks from Defence sources reported in authorative mainstream media outlets - zip.
In an age when it is impossible to even keep secrets about some of UKUSA's most sensitive SIGINT capabilities?
I think when they really do develop a bomb - we'll all find out about it quickly enough.
Let's imagine what would happen if the daily intel brief landed on the desk in the Oval Office, and the topline issue was "Iran demonstrates working nuclear warhead - miniaturised to fit on ballistic missile."
What would we see?
At the very least I would have thought, a sudden and very marked increase in shuttle diplomacy, and an emergency UN Security Council meeting? NATO convening all sorts of meetings?
Significant changes in force postures all across the region?
Relocation of all sorts of defence assets?
And then the leaks to well informed journalists in the US would begin - while their brethren in the UK were slapped with D notices preventing them from disclosing anything sensitive?
Somehow I don't think it's happened - yet.

[27mm]

I'd be less concerned about Iran's hypothetical nuclear weapon than Pakistan's actual ones..

[glad rag]

If Iran gets, and it's a big IF, an atomic weapon system it will probably be the greatest boost for regional stability since the parting of the Red Sea.

Why do I think this?

Because it's the exact opposite of what the warmongers and Hawks want!!

[teeteringhead]

but a uranium weapon is very very different than a plutonium weapon.

Uranium = Hiroshima

Plutonium = Nagasaki

Not a vast difference in effect methinks ........

[Lonewolf_50]

I'd be less concerned about Iran's hypothetical nuclear weapon than Pakistan's actual ones.. In the short term, yeah, as they've just done another successful ballistic missile test. In the medium to longer term ... hmmm. :suspect:

[KenV]

One thing that this discussion on "why" Iran should not have nukes seems to ignore is that Iran was a signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Attempts to build a nuke are non compliant, giving the UN and other nations the legal authority to do something about that, including military action.

[KenV]

Uranium = Hiroshima
Plutonium = Nagasaki
Not a vast difference in effect methinks ........ It was patently obvious I was discussing the relative technologies of the weapons, not the outcomes. And it is the technology, not the outcome, that is relevant in this discussion. So was this due to misunderstanding, or something else?

By comparison, Tokyo was more severely devastated and more people died there than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and no nukes were involved. So another totally different technology with a similar outcome.

Which begs the question: why all the outrage about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Tokyo was far worse.

[Geordie_Expat]

What outrage ? Why do you always want to pick an argument ?

[KenV]

You're not aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki having sparked outrage? Where've you been living the past few decades?

[Lonewolf_50]

You're not aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki having sparked outrage? Where've you been living the past few decades?As teeteringhead dragged them into this discussion, maybe we can all toss them out and return out attentions to the Iranian nuclear weapons -- real or potential -- as more information presents itself. I am also interested to see what sanctions, if any, will be applied to Iran for having welched on the recent deal.

[PersonFromPorlock]

It's not especially reassuring that a theocracy that regards martyrdom-by-suicide-bomb as a virtue may soon have the means of constructing a doomsday device. "Do as we say or everybody gets it!" may yet prove to be a foreign policy winner.

And note that no delivery system is needed.

[KenV]

It's not especially reassuring that a theocracy that regards martyrdom-by-suicide-bomb as a virtue....It gets more worrisome. At least some portions of that theocracy not only believe in an impending apocalypse, but believe that they have a critical role to play in bringing about that apocalypse. A few nukes would seem to fit such ambitions rather nicely. So this potentially involves much more than Iran vs Israel or even Iran vs the whole of the middle east. Just how wise is it to allow folks with not just an apocalyptic vision but an apocalyptic ambition to have nukes?

And on a related note, once Iran has nukes, does anyone imagine that it will stop there? The Saudis are certain to want to get some. And almost certainly Turkey. And after that probably Egypt. And so on. Jihadists with nukes. What could possibly go wrong?

[Focks 2]

Iran, about half way through:

KenFM am Set - Vortrag von Ray McGovern und Elizabeth Murray - Wie werden Kriege "gemacht" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EDknszjcNY)

[teeteringhead]

It was patently obvious I was discussing the relative technologies of the weapons, not the outcomes. And it is the technology, not the outcome, that is relevant in this discussion. So was this due to misunderstanding, or something else?

Oh dear, what have I started. :ugh:

Yes KenV, you were indeed "patently obvious" but in the wider geopolitical context, surely it is outcomes (inshallah potential outcomes) that have as much a place in any discussion as technologies.

Given the choice of being in Hiroshima on 6 Aug 45 or Nagasaki 3 days later, what difference would it have made? (not that I was born anyway)

So was this due to misunderstanding, or something else?

I guess the "something else" might just have been innocently contributing to the wider discussion of nukes, and pointing out the sometimes apparently little known facts of the essential difference between Little Boy and Fat Man.

Nor did I realise the constraints on the breadth of the discussion. ;) One always finds "thread drift" one of the most endearing things about Pprune ......

But I'll say no more (other than to say there is no significance whatsoever in the italicised word I use above :ok:)

[KenV]

Yes KenV, you were indeed "patently obvious" but in the wider geopolitical context, surely it is outcomes (inshallah potential outcomes) that have as much a place in any discussion as technologies.OK, so you decided to use a reply to my post as jumping off point to go into a completely different direction than my post. Got it.

Given the choice of being in Hiroshima on 6 Aug 45 or Nagasaki 3 days later, what difference would it have made? (not that I was born anyway) Very little. But there would not have been much difference either if you'd been in Tokyo on March 9 or in Dresden in February. BTW the Tokyo Operation Meetinghose raid was the single most destructive air raid in history, and involved no nukes. So your point escapes me.

Since this thread is about IRAN and the threat the world faces from a nuclear armed Iran, which WW2 bombing raid is relevant? Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? There's zero chance Iran will get their hands on several hundred heavy bombers, so the Dresden and Tokyo raids are out. It seems unlikely that Iran can develop a plutonium powered implosion weapon, so that takes Nagasaki out of the picture. Iran may be able to enrich enough uranium to weapons grade for a uranium powered weapon. And they certainly have the technology to develop a gun type nuke. So that would seem to mean our policing efforts should focus there. Which means focusing on centrifuge technology, equipment, and facilities, and not on plutonium producing research/weapons reactors (commercial power reactors do not produce weapons grade plutonium.)

And on a related note, it is very hard to mass-produce weapons grade uranium. That is why the US only had two uranium powered (gun type) bombs. The rest were all plutonium powered. If Iran is successful in building a nuke, they likely will only be able to build very few of them. They just would not be able to produce enough weapons grade uranium for a large number of uranium weapons. And gun type weapons are inherently unsafe because unlike implosion weapons, gun type weapons have several failure modes that can result in a nuclear yield. The upside is that gun type weapons cannot be miniaturized, thus significantly complicating delivery of the weapon.

[glad rag]

I'm with Geordie on this one.

:D

[AreOut]

I can't understand why US should be more concerned about iranian nuclear weapons than Russia, Iran borders with Russia and you never know when and how will they change their foreign policy...