Iran: crisis looming over nuclear plans

[FalconSix]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Hehe....don`t think that would be much of a prob.
  Highly possible an unmarked, "nonexistent" tanker could just happen to be in the neighborhood if needed.

In who's airspace?

[Hangtime]

I'd kinda like to know.... who sold 'em a centrifuge?

[Toad]

In the last scene of Casablanca, Captain Renault gives orders to "Round up the usual suspects!"

Seems like a reasonable thing to do here.  


 The centrifuge connection

By David Albright and Corey Hinderstein
March/April 2004  pp. 61-66 (vol. 60, no. 02) © 2004 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
 
   
Iran has admitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it made secret efforts to procure the wherewithal to make sophisticated gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. But few believe that Iran has told the whole story of its extensive foreign procurements.

As of mid-January 2004, Iranian officials continued to insist that they obtained sensitive centrifuge drawings and components through "intermediaries," and that they did not know the original source of the items.

Recent Pakistani government investigations are undercutting that assertion and magnifying concerns that Iran has made only a partial declaration to the IAEA. Senior Pakistani gas centrifuge experts and officials have admitted to Pakistani government investigators that they provided centrifuge assistance to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

Details are sketchy at press time about who exactly was involved in these transfers, when they occurred, and how they were arranged. Although the Pakistani government has denied authorizing any of the transfers, characterizing them as the work of rogue scientists, evidence points to at least Pakistani government knowledge.

Iran had many other important suppliers. Individuals and companies in Europe and the Middle East also played a key role in supplying Iran's centrifuge program. China was the most important supplier to Iran's program to produce uranium compounds, including uranium hexafluoride, the highly corrosive gas used in centrifuges.

[FalconSix]

Russia most likely, if they didn't make them themselves. Russia is overseeing most if not all of Iran's nuclear program, and selling them the uranium.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Skydancer
I think if we got rid of our nuclear weapons / facilities we might have more of a leg to stand on when we tell others they can't have em. If not we  as atomic nations are mere hypocrytes.

In cooperation with Russia, the USA is decommisioning its peacekeeper (MX) missile system.

According to the Bulliten of the Atomic Scientists  

We estimate that from 1945 to 1990, the United States produced at several sites approximately 70,000 nuclear weapons of approximately 70 types for more than 120 weapon systems. Annual production rates rose dramatically throughout the 1950s. In 1959 and 1960, there were 7,088 and 7,178 new builds, respectively, or about 28 warheads each workday. By 1967 the stockpile reached a historic high with approximately 32,000 warheads of 30 different types, from sub-kiloton landmines (atomic demolition munitions) to multi-megaton strategic bombs. The historic high for megatonnage was reached in 1960 with nearly 20,500 megatons (that's 20 billion tons, or 40 trillion pounds, of TNT)--the equivalent of about 1,400,000 Hiroshimas. Today the total is about one-tenth the 1960 level, or about 2,000 megatons, or 140,000 Hiroshimas.

The United States has dismantled approximately 60,000 warheads. For four decades, there was a steady rhythm to the size of the stockpile; old warheads were retired, their plutonium and uranium components recycled, and new warheads were fabricated and fielded. This ended in 1989, when the Rocky Flats plant in Colorado, where the pits were made, was shut down for safety and environmental reasons. Since then, no new warheads have been produced.

When the Cold War ended, there were approximately 21,500 nuclear warheads in the U.S. stockpile. More than 11,000 nuclear warheads were disassembled and disposed of during the 1990s, leaving about 10,400 in the current stockpile.

[FalconSix]

Holding on to 10,000 nukes is far from "getting rid of" nukes. I don't agree though that everyone should get rid of their nukes. I think it would be far better if everybody had em.

[Toad]

Yeah, I think every family should have at least one.

[FalconSix]

Yeah, we dont want any form of gun control now do we?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by FalconSix
Holding on to 10,000 nukes is far from "getting rid of" nukes. I don't agree though that everyone should get rid of their nukes. I think it would be far better if everybody had em.

If we don't get any credit at all for reducing our warheads by half and our megatonnage by 90%, then I say rebuild the stockpile.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by FalconSix
In who's airspace?

You ever heard the one that goes....."Where does King Kong sleep?"

[FalconSix]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If we don't get any credit at all for reducing our warheads by half and our megatonnage by 90%, then I say rebuild the stockpile.

You wanna pay for that? I sure dont. You think the government wanted to keep all those nukes?

[FalconSix]

Originally posted by Jackal1
You ever heard the one that goes....."Where does King Kong sleep?"

That kind of mentality is what makes people blow our watermelon up and park planes in our buildings. If we are going to be that much involved we might just as well bomb the Iranians ourselves.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by FalconSix
That kind of mentality is what makes people blow our watermelon up and park planes in our buildings. If we are going to be that much involved we might just as well bomb the Iranians ourselves.

  What makes people "blow our watermelon up and park planes in our buildings " , as you put it , is one thing. Taking care of business is what makes it stop and or controls it. Cowering in the corner will get you arse whooped fast. We are not known to do a lot of backing down when the time comes.
  We will be as "involved"  as it takes if and when the time comes.
  We recently made a sell to Israel fitted for their planes if that gives you any insight.

[Skydancer]

"Taking care of business is what makes it stop and or controls it."

Not entirely sure that Policy has worked in Iraq!

Leading by example is a rather better idea wouldn't you say.( Its ok Jackal1  know you wouldn't  as its your avowed intent to disagree with everything emanating from my keyboard )

I think a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons might be better. Tough to enforce but its plain hypocracy to demand a nation complies with a nuclear ban whilst holding 10,000 nuclear weapons yourself.

" Do as we say not as we do" The mantra of a bully and thats how those parts of the world see us I fear.

I don't like the idea of an Islamic fundamentalist state having nukes but I can see why they wouldn't listen to us at the moment.You have to capture the moral high ground. I think we learned that in WW2 then promptly forgot it for the rest of history!

[Gh0stFT]

How can a worldwide ban work for real?
They can't compete with the US in military force, but there are weapons of the weak. Weapons of mass destruction, which by now are becoming weapons of the weak, see North Korea.