Iran Nuclear threat

[southsider2k5]

After more than a decade of working behind layers of front companies and in hidden laboratories, Iran appears to be in the late stages of developing the capacity to build a nuclear bomb.

 

Iran insists that like many countries it is only building commercial nuclear reactors to generate electricity for homes and factories.

 

"Iran's efforts in the field of nuclear technology are focused on civilian application and nothing else," President Mohammad Khatami said on state television in February. "This is the legitimate right of the Iranian people."

 

But a three-month investigation by the Los Angeles Times--drawing on previously secret reports, international officials, independent experts, Iranian exiles and intelligence sources in Europe and the Middle East--uncovered strong evidence that Iran's commercial program masks a plan to become the world's next nuclear power.

 

The country has been engaged in a pattern of clandestine activity that has concealed work from international inspectors. Technology and scientists from Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan have reportedly propelled Iran's nuclear program much closer to producing a bomb than Iraq ever was.

 

No one is certain when Iran might be able to produce an atomic weapon. Some experts said two or three years; others believe the government has probably not given a final go-ahead. But it is clear that Iran is moving rapidly toward acquiring the capability.

 

Among the findings:

 

A confidential report prepared by the French government in May concluded that Iran is surprisingly close to having enriched uranium or plutonium for a bomb. The French warned other governments to exercise "the most serious vigilance on their exports to Iran and Iranian front companies," according to a copy of the report provided by a foreign intelligence service.

 

Samples of uranium taken by UN inspectors in Iran in June tested positive for enrichment levels high enough to be consistent with an attempt to build a nuclear weapon, according to a foreign intelligence officer and an American diplomat. The Reuters news service first reported the possibility that the material was weapons-grade last month.

 

Iran is apparently concealing several weapons research laboratories and evidence of past activity at a plant disguised as a watchmaking factory in a Tehran suburb. In June, UN inspectors were refused access to two large rooms and barred from testing samples at the factory.

 

Tehran reportedly secretly imported 1.8 tons of nuclear material from China in 1991 and processed some of it to manufacture uranium metal, which would be of no use in a commercial program but would be integral to weapons production.

 

As early as 1989, Pakistani generals offered to sell Iran nuclear weapons technology. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist regarded by the U.S. as a purveyor of nuclear secrets, has helped Iran for years. "Pakistan's role was bigger from the beginning than we thought," said a Middle Eastern intelligence official.

 

North Korean military scientists recently were monitored entering Iranian nuclear facilities. They are assisting in the design of a nuclear warhead, according to people inside Iran and foreign intelligence officials. So many North Koreans are working on projects in Iran that a resort on the Caspian coast is set aside for their use.

 

Russian scientists, sometimes traveling to Iran under false identities and working without their government's approval, are helping complete a special reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. Moscow insists that it is providing only commercial technology for the civilian reactor under construction near the Persian Gulf port of Bushehr, an assertion disputed by Washington.

 

In recent months, Iran has approached European companies to buy devices that can manipulate large volumes of radioactive material, technology to forge uranium metal and plutonium and switches that could trigger a nuclear weapon. European intelligence sources said Tehran's shopping list was a strong indication that Iran has moved to the late stages of weapons development.

 

If Iran built a nuclear weapon, it would be the first avowed enemy of Israel so armed and would be the first nuclear-armed nation labeled by the U.S. as a sponsor of terrorism.

 

The Bush administration calls a nuclear-armed Iran unacceptable. Last week, President Bush said he hoped international pressure would convince the Iranians that "development of a nuclear weapon is not in their interests," but he added that "all options remain on the table."

 

CIA briefings alleged

 

Foreign intelligence officers said the CIA has briefed them on a contingency plan for U.S. air and missile attacks against Iranian nuclear installations.

 

A CIA spokeswoman declined to confirm or deny that such a plan has been drafted.

 

There is precedent for such a strike.

 

Israeli jets destroyed a French-built nuclear reactor outside Baghdad in 1981 shortly before it was to go online.

 

Taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure would prove tougher, said Israeli military planners and outside analysts. The facilities are spread around the country, and small installations are still secret. At least one key facility is being built to withstand conventional air strikes.

 

So far, the UN-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, has preferred negotiation to confrontation with Iran.

 

In a June 16 report, its director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, criticized Iran for concealing nuclear activities.

 

No violation declared

 

But ElBaradei resisted U.S. pressure to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which was created in 1968 to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

 

The Iranian Foreign Ministry did not respond to requests for interviews.

 

Iran has long contended that it plans to build six civilian reactors to generate electricity for its growing population of 65 million.

 

Iran's civilian nuclear energy program started in 1974 and was interrupted by the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It got back on track in 1995, when Russia signed an $800 million contract to complete a commercial reactor at Bushehr, which is scheduled to come online next year.

 

Russia promised to sell Iran the uranium fuel to power the reactor. But Iran wants its own nuclear fuelmaking capability, a position that has roused international suspicions.

 

Typically, nations with civilian nuclear programs buy fuel from nations that export the reactors because the fuelmaking process is complicated and expensive.

 

In the most common way to make the fuel, uranium ore is converted to a gas and pumped into centrifuges, where rotors spinning at twice the speed of sound separate isotopes. The process "enriches" the uranium to the point that fission can be sustained in a reactor, which pumps out heat to drive electrical turbines.

 

The same enrichment process can concentrate fissionable uranium at greater levels to produce material for a bomb.

 

Iran agreed not to produce nuclear weapons when it signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1970, which opened the door for it to acquire civilian reactors. The treaty does not prohibit Iran from producing or possessing enriched uranium but requires it to submit its facilities to international monitoring to ensure that materials are not diverted to weapons use.

 

Iran has permitted inspections of its declared commercial nuclear facilities. But last year, an Iranian exile group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, pinpointed a secret underground enrichment plant outside Natanz, a small mountain town about 200 miles south of Tehran. The exile group is the political wing of the Mujahedeen Khalq, which is listed by the U.S. as a terrorist group. But independent experts said its information from inside Iran has often been accurate.

 

In December, the Institute for Science and International Security, a small think tank in Washington, published satellite photos of Natanz from the archives of a commercial firm, DigitalGlobe. The photos showed large-scale construction inside the perimeter of a security fence. Among the buildings were a pilot centrifuge plant and two underground halls big enough for tens of thousands of centrifuges, the institute said.

 

Pressure mounted to allow international monitors into Natanz, and senior IAEA officials visited Natanz in February. They found 160 assembled centrifuges and components for 1,000 more. Moreover, the equipment was to be housed in bunkers 75 feet deep, with walls 8 feet thick.

 

The level of centrifuge development at Natanz already reflects thousands of hours of testing and technological work, experts said. By comparison, Iraq had tested a single centrifuge for about 100 hours when IAEA inspectors began dismantling its nuclear weapons program after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

 

Once it is up and running, Natanz could make enough material for a bomb within a year and eventually enough for three to five bombs a year, experts said.

 

Another site revealed

 

The exile group also revealed a secret site near Arak, a city of 400,000 in western Iran. Under international pressure, Iran conceded in February that it plans to build a special type of reactor there that will generate plutonium for research. Plutonium is the radioactive material at the heart of some of the most powerful nuclear bombs.

 

The disclosures cast previous Iranian statements in a new light.

 

Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of an influential government council, said on Dec. 14, 2001, "In due time the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device, and then the strategy of the West would reach a dead end, since one bomb is enough to destroy all Israel."

 

Rafsanjani has since stepped back in his rhetoric, noting Friday that "because of religious and moral beliefs and commitments that the Koran has created for us, we cannot and will not pursue such weapons that destroy humanity."

 

On July 20, Iran unveiled a missile based on a North Korean design that brings Israel within range and hailed the event as an important step in protecting the Palestinians.

[moochpuppy]

Why don't we just invade every middle east country and get it over with.

[southsider2k5]

Well the question to me is clear. If Iran getst the bomb, and uses it against Israel, do we retailate in kind?

[1549]

On one hand, they could not do anything if we did. They don't have the range. ON the other hand we shouldn't for humanity's sake.

 

Just use regular bombs until Iran ceases to exist.

[Cerbaho-WG]

Old news, Iran has had a reactor being built, with help from the Russians I believe, for several years.

[southsider2k5]

Old news, Iran has had a reactor being built, with help from the Russians I believe, for several years.

Reactor(s) plural. We keep finding them, we also keep finding out about all of these other Nuclear countries helping their programs, and all of the materials that they are acquiring to do it.

[Cerbaho-WG]

Reactor(s)  plural.  We keep finding them, we also keep finding out about all of these other Nuclear countries helping their programs, and all of the materials that they are acquiring to do it.

I was talking about their latest reactor, which Russia has been funding with scientists and labor.

[Mathew]

Well the question to me is clear.  If Iran getst the bomb, and uses it against Israel, do we retailate in kind?

Isreal wouldn't wait for an American retaliation nor ask permission, there would be craters in Iran within 30 minutes.

[Rex Kickass]

IMHO, Israel needs to put its big boy pants on in that situation and deal with it on its own... and believe me, we wouldnt be drawn into that. However, Iran would not be likely to use its nukes I dont think. What people seem to forget is that Israels undeclared WMD program (probably 10 times larger than Iraqs ever was) is seen as a threat to those countries that swear Israel as an enemy. Israel has invaded other countries for the name of security... why wouldnt they use a bomb? is probably the way of thinking. Iran is a state where the leaders realize how tenuous their hold on power is. Accelerating a nuclear program may be the surest way to protect themselves from a feared American attack. Another unintended consequence of a failed Bush foreign policy.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Israel is the #1 country that violates UN resolutions. US veto vote always stops the rest of the UN from punishing Israel.

 

I also find it fun that the US is railing against other countries having nukes, yet Congress approved in June over $43 million for us to do research into "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators". Orwellian language notwithstanding, these are 2000 lb. bombs that Dubya wants to put nuclear tips on.

 

After the research, they have said that testing will occur in the United States [and we all remember the cancer and birth defects from when they tested the WW II bombs here, right?]

 

Israel has already said that if it feels sufficiently threatened, it will not fear using nukes. I just wonder if the US stopped selling them weapons, if they would stop being so brash about invading, building the giant wall, etc. etc. etc. My .02

 

With the John Wayne wannabe "President" in office, I'm sure Iran is scared s***less...after all they made the "Axis of Evil" that the State Department didn't authorize Chimpy to use in his State of the Union.

[YASNY]

Since when does the State Dept. have to authorize what a sitting president says?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Since when does the State Dept. have to authorize what a sitting president says?

The State Department, like the CIA, tries to give the "President" accurate things for his speech. Like when the CIA told him to remove the uranium in October, but Bush still said it in January anyways. They did not have any reason for Bush to use the "Axis of Evil". It was not an approved statement as obviously the State Department does not want to see the US seem as an aggressor but Chimpy went ahead with it anyway because he never gets held accountable for anything.

[1549]

Israel is the #1 country that violates UN resolutions.  US veto vote always stops the rest of the UN from punishing Israel.

 

I also find it fun that the US is railing against other countries having nukes, yet Congress approved in June over $43 million for us to do research into "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators".  Orwellian language notwithstanding, these are 2000 lb. bombs that Dubya wants to put nuclear tips on.

 

After the research, they have said that testing will occur in the United States [and we all remember the cancer and birth defects from when they tested the WW II bombs here, right?]

 

Israel has already said that if it feels sufficiently threatened, it will not fear using nukes.  I just wonder if the US stopped selling them weapons, if they would stop being so brash about invading, building the giant wall, etc. etc. etc.  My .02

 

With the John Wayne wannabe "President" in office, I'm sure Iran is scared s***less...after all they made the "Axis of Evil" that the State Department didn't authorize Chimpy to use in his State of the Union.

For once on this board, I actually agree with what you are saying Apu.

 

I do not think that we should be selling weapons to isreal or any nation for that matter. We are just simply making enemies. Though if Isreal were to be in a war in that region I feel we should back them.

 

I also do not agree with the usage of nuclear weapons. My mother lost her life to cancer, and though it was probably not caused by nukes, other people will suffer from their affects.

 

Testing Nukes in the U.S. is just ridiculous. We should keep a small amount of nukes just in case. But we should not be testing new ones.

[Rex Kickass]

There is something to be said about the proliferation of nuclear weaponry causing increased stability in the world. In fact, John Mearsheimer, a respected professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago (who is both conservative, and anti-Iraq war), has pioneered the idea. Perhaps it is something that the US government is following privately.

 

I don't really buy into it. The problem here isn't that Iraq or North Korea get a bomb. Neither are likely to use them, the problem is more along the lines of influence, and stability.

 

One: The more states that are nuclear, the less power the US has to influence the politics of other states. It would have to compete with an Iran (an ascending regional power). This could hurt the US in its foreign policy and its economy.

 

Two: Stability is a reason for concern. Iran and North Korea arent states with the tightest hold on power. When change comes, it will not likely be orderly. This is a problem because these weapons could much more easily be transferred to non-state actors (ie terrorist operations) when a state's government is in flux. Non state actors have little to lose, so using a bomb wouldnt be a tough option for them. North Korea or Iran knows that a Nuclear discharge in Israel or South Korea would be the end to them as well. For the states, it creates a mutually assured destruction regime... one which has proven itself quite stable in every circumstance, even if it seems scary at the time (US/USSR during the 1980s arms race and India/Pakistan over the last five years)

[DonkeyKongerko]

There is something to be said about the proliferation of nuclear weaponry causing increased stability in the world. In fact, John Mearsheimer, a respected professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago (who is both conservative, and anti-Iraq war), has pioneered the idea. Perhaps it is something that the US government is following privately.

 

I don't really buy into it. The problem here isn't that Iraq or North Korea get a bomb. Neither are likely to use them, the problem is more along the lines of influence, and stability.

 

One: The more states that are nuclear, the less power the US has to influence the politics of other states. It would have to compete with an Iran (an ascending regional power). This could hurt the US in its foreign policy and its economy.

 

Two: Stability is a reason for concern. Iran and North Korea arent states with the tightest hold on power. When change comes, it will not likely be orderly. This is a problem because these weapons could much more easily be transferred to non-state actors (ie terrorist operations) when a state's government is in flux. Non state actors have little to lose, so using a bomb wouldnt be a tough option for them. North Korea or Iran knows that a Nuclear discharge in Israel or South Korea would be the end to them as well. For the states, it creates a mutually assured destruction regime... one which has proven itself quite stable in every circumstance, even if it seems scary at the time (US/USSR during the 1980s arms race and India/Pakistan over the last five years)

Wow are you in my Poli Sci class or something? We are talking about all that stuff.

 

That being said, Mearsheimer has some pretty militant ideas regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Some of which need to be taken with a grain of salt or twenty.

 

Meanwhile the biggest problem with non-proliferation seems to be the haves dictating terms to the have-nots. In my view it is almost an inevitability that developing dissatisfied powers like North Korea and Iran will aspire for nuclear weapons because of the international leverage they provide. Nukes are much less a tool of military power these days in the way that there is a very low probability that a state will ever intentionally use one. The problem is with unstable governments and nuclear weapons getting into the hands of the wrong people. These people could conceivably face none of the responsibility if they decided to use such a weapon.

 

Many theorists favor the abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide but I believe this could be a serious mistake. A total elimination of nuclear weapons along the lines of START would create an unstable multilateral balance of power in the world. A situation similar to the world before World War 2 where without the prospect of nuclear intervention, conventional warfare was much more common.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually Im a grad school drop out, was gettin my masters in Poli Sci.

 

The theory of elimination is similar to that of an International Criminal Court. It would only work if every state had the same systems, regimes and intentions. Ideally, its a fit. Realistically, it would be a nightmare.

 

Like I said, I don't know how much I believe the proliferation theory by Mearshimer, but I think (despite recent flare ups that have turned out to nothing) that it has indeed decreased the likelihood of an actual war between certain states. The fact that North Korea may be able to strike LA now makes us handle that situation with considerably less rush to war... of course having an actual policy might help in that situation.

 

The problem then becomes making sure nuclear states stay stable. It suddenly would become in the best interest of the US to make sure that North Korea and Iran do not fall into complete chaos if regime change would occur... in otherwords, the US could find itself in the position of defending these Axis of Evil states. Which is quite unnerving indeed.