Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: So Iran just pursues peaceful nuclear energy?
Hamilcar    11/5/2009 10:18:42 PM
link Quote: Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design ? secret report Exclusive: Watchdog fears Tehran has key component to put bombs in missiles. The UN's nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned. The very existence of the technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as "breathtaking" and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. The sophisticated technology, once mastered, allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads than older models. It reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. Documentation referring to experiments testing a two-point detonation design are part of the evidence of nuclear weaponisation gathered by the IAEA and presented to Iran for its response. The dossier, titled "Possible Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear Program", is drawn in part from reports submitted to it by western intelligence agencies. The agency has in the past treated such reports with scepticism, particularly after the Iraq war. But its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the evidence of Iranian weaponisation "appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran". Extracts from the dossier have been published previously, but it was not previously known that it included documentation on such an advanced warhead. "It is breathtaking that Iran could be working on this sort of material," said a European government adviser on nuclear issues. James Acton, a British nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "It's remarkable that, before perfecting step one, they are going straight to step four or five ... To start with more sophisticated designs speaks of level of technical ambition that is surprising." Another western specialist with extensive knowledge of the Iranian programme said: "It raises the question of who supplied this to them. Did AQ Khan [a Pakistani scientist who confessed in 2004 to running a nuclear smuggling ring] have access to this, or is it another player?" The revelation of the documents comes at a time of growing tension. Tehran has so far rejected a deal that would remove most of its enriched uranium stockpile for a year and replace it with nuclear fuel rods which would be much harder to turn into weapons. The Iranian government has also balked at negotiations, which were due to begin last week, over its continued enrichment of uranium, in defiance of UN security council resolutions. There are fears in Washington and London that if no deal is reached to at least temporarily defuse tensions by the end of December, Israel could set in motion plans to take military action aimed at setting back the Iranian programme by force, with incalculable consequences for the Middle East. Iran has rejected most of the IAEA material on weaponisation as forgeries, but has admitted carrying out tests on multiple high-explosive detonations synchronised to within a microsecond. Tehran has told the agency that there is a civilian application for such tests, but has so far not provided any evidence for them. Western weapons experts say there are no such civilian applications, but the use of co-ordinated detonations in nuclear warheads is well known. They compress the fissile core, or pit, of the warhead until it reaches critical mass. A US national intelligence estimate two years ago said that Iran had explored nuclear warhead design for several years but had probably stopped in 2003. British, French and German officials have said they believe weaponisation continued after that date and may still be continuing. In September, a German court found a German-Iranian businessman, Mohsen Vanaki, guilty of brokering the sale of dual-use equipment with possible applications in developing nuclear weapons. The equipment included specialised high-speed cameras, of the sort used to develop implosion devices, as well as radiation detectors. According to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, testified at the trial that there was evidence that Iran's weapons development was continuing. The IAEA is seeking to find out what the scientists and the institutions involved in th
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
FJV    Wrong question   11/9/2009 1:49:12 PM
Of course they want nukes.
The Iranian nuclear program was actually started by the shah. (before the days of the mullahs).
 
What interests me more is: How competent are they? The anwser to this question determines how long it will take them to make a bomb. (and also the time when we have to strike their program).
 
No-one is interested in giving me an accurate answer. The media just wants the maximum scare story, because that just sells better so they won't give me an accurate answer. The politicians want to use this scare for their gain in playing politics, so they won't give me an accurate answer. The secret service keeps their mouths shut, in fact they have more to gain from having inaccurate info publicly available.

So it could be 1 year or it could be 20 years. I have seen no reliable info to give more accuracy.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/9/2009 2:04:01 PM


So it could be 1 year or it could be 20 years. I have seen no reliable info to give more accuracy.


No free information for you. You can either pay me $50 for providing detailed information in 1 week, or you can waste your time looking for answer just like all of us did.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    An administration that cannot brief its president on this simple thing.   11/9/2009 2:13:25 PM
And what a public relations disaster it is, cannot handle the major problems.
 
=======================================
The Iranians haven't made a concrete rejection. Rather, they are stalling for time. This is actually something the Obama Administration will accept for now. The stalling will allow the admin to handle some of the other critical issues on it's plate and continue to try and get the Russians on board for sanctions. In parallel, preparations for military strikes will continue should that become necessary. 

Right now we have

1. Economic Crisis (Immediate) and bungled as Joe Biden admits.
2. GWOT (High) See the gaffe below for how that is mismanaged.
3. Health Care (High) Unnecessary fiddle as we have much bigger problems (1,2,4,6)
4. US-Asia relations (Medium) Collapsed as the relations with India have never been worse.
5. Russian Resurgence (High) Vastly overstated. The PRC is the bigger threat.
6. Iranian Nuclear program (Medium) Near term threat HIGH. Reason, the teleprompter reader wrecked working relations with Israel and thus, more or less, forced Israel now into the role of self-interested free agent. The Syria sanction was a closely coordinated foreign policy exchange of information with the US apprised so that there would be no Sunday morning surprise to upset the Middle East apple cart and distract the US with another war on its plate courtesy.of a rogue action  Not so with this incompetent.administration. The lines of communication and trust are cut with Israelo and with the GCC states.
 
Lets say Immediate needs attention now, high in the next year, medium within 1-5 years. Low are things like abortion, gun control and gay rights ect.
 
Domestic politics can be summed up in one word: JOBS. Lack of same, as the policy emphasis, is the prima facia  indicator of incompetence by agenda driven rascals who do not understand "its the economy, stupid."  

Here is an example of mismanagement of three items, domestic policy, military affairs, and foreign affairs all in one neat package   
 
Were President Obama?s Fort Ho...
BY: Michelle Lamar | Nov 05 | 4 comments... | Related : Hot Topics...


President ObamaShortly after Major Malik Nadal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood in Texas, President Barack Obama held a press conference to address the issue. But before getting around to the shooting that had already claimed a dozen lives and wounded at least 31 people, he began his remarks by saying:

I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It?s good to see you.

What do you think about this?  Soldiers were killed at the largest activity duty armored post in the United States but the President wants to say hi to J...
 
==========================
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Ahem...   11/9/2009 2:20:22 PM
You can either pay me $50 for providing detailed information in 1 week.
 
Why would you believe I would consider some anonymous guy on an internet forum qualifies as a credible source worth $50? (not intended to insult)
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @FJV and Yellichink   11/9/2009 3:37:11 PM
The best way to judge...

Unless the United States has changed it's position that Iranian nuclear weapons are unacceptable, then Iran is not close to operational nuclear weaponry. If so, we would strike or AT LEAST this would be a major foreign policy issue on the front pages and TV networks. It would dominate Obama's press time and schedule. We would also see much more overt military pressure. Moreover, the Israeli's would not, CAN NOT, sit idly by and allow something like that for reasons I already explained. They have the ability to compel the United States and others into action. We cannot for any reason allow a threat to the flow of oil out of the gulf. Any strike against Iran would make the threat of such Iranian action too high to not act preemptively. The Israeli's CAN NOT secure Gulf shipping from Iran. Only the USN can do that. And they can only do that by striking Iran's military BEFORE it has a chance to seed the Gulf with mines. If the United States were to take such preemptive action to secure the gulf, then it may as well go after the Iranian nuclear program as well. It hasn't and neither have the Israeli's initiated hostilities.

Thusly, evidence suggest, Iran may indeed be working on nuclear weapons but it hasn't reached the point where military action is inevitable or immediately necessary. The United States is using this time to attempt a more desirable outcome and clear other more immediately urgent issues before committing to irreversible and ultimately unpredictable military action. Again, it's EASY to SAY, bomb or kill them and change the regime. It's a whole different matter to actually execute it. The issue is not destroying the Iranian military, bombing their nuclear facilities or changing the regime. We have done ALL OF THAT in Iraq. The issue is how to secure the peace in the aftermath so that we aren't tied to a 3rd Theater of Operations for another decade or two and how to prevent the disruption of oil while the EARTH is in the recovery phase of a recession. This is not a simple matter as any competent and informed analysis will tell you. This is an issue of resources and timing.

-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Thus proving that this administration ddoes not know what it is doing.   11/9/2009 5:49:22 PM
Healthcare and ostracizing Israel are good actions right now?

Nice comment on the mine warfare, though, at least that much is understood by the Obama defender.

Maybe he can drop a line about that  to that resident in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or send him this:
 
 
He sure could use some good advice for a change.
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/9/2009 5:56:42 PM
DA, once more I hope you're right.
 
Because honestly, what I and a lot of other posters on this board are seeing is a President who is afraid to do something for fear it will cause his personal popularity to go down.  If he attacks Iran (we at least both agree this is a last-resort move), he alienates most of the Democrat party.  If he does nothing, he risks seeing a nuclear-armed Iran--something he promised during last year's campaign would never happen on his watch.  So right now, Obama is basically not doing much more than praying that Russia, China, or somebody comes along to bail his ass out before he has to make a politically risky decision.  And he's wrong if that what he's hoping--neither Russia or China is going to help; they have no interest in doing so. 
 
Now I accept that I might be wrong.  Obama might be spinning this thing out so that, if airstrikes do become the only alternative, he can say that we exhausted every avenue.  If so, I will be quite effusive with praise should that happen (I'll even accept if it happens accidentally).  The problem is, right now he looks very weak and afraid.  I'm not the only one who senses this.  Chavez is moving troops to the Colombian border, and I think the reason he's doing it is because he thinks he can get away with it if he attacks Colombia.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @sentinel   11/9/2009 7:43:11 PM

DA, once more I hope you're right.

 Me, too. One way or the other we will find out.

Because honestly, what I and a lot of other posters on this board are seeing is a President who is afraid to do something for fear it will cause his personal popularity to go down.  If he attacks Iran (we at least both agree this is a last-resort move), he alienates most of the Democrat party.  If he does nothing, he risks seeing a nuclear-armed Iran--something he promised during last year's campaign would never happen on his watch.  So right now, Obama is basically not doing much more than praying that Russia, China, or somebody comes along to bail his ass out before he has to make a politically risky decision.  And he's wrong if that what he's hoping--neither Russia or China is going to help; they have no interest in doing so. 

 I highlighted the errors. First, this board is a highly biased venue for discussing anything having to do with Obama. For that reason, I try only to say POTUS in order to keep a somewhat objective thread. What a lot of you don't understand, is that Obama's FP on most of these issues is no different than Bush. I've shown numerous examples of that. Presidents most often have VERY LITTLE room to maneuver on FP issues. What's said on the campaign trail is usually a lot different when put into practice. This has ZERO to do with Obama's popularity. As a military professional, I've explained in a lot of detail WHY we can't simple just "kill them" everytime some crisis comes up. I've explained the politics and logistical constraints from the point of view of someone who is actually experienced with how things work. Set aside the politics about Obama, Bush ect. and listen to the logic and wisdom from those who understand the process. I don't know these things based on luck. It's almost 2 decades of experience. 

What the POTUS is doing is using TIME to get to a diplomatic solution. Contrary to what you said, IT IS in Russia's interest to cooperate. They want things from the United States they can't get without our consent. They certainly can't TAKE them. So, they are using Iran as LEVERAGE in negotiations. They understand our constraints and desire not to get caught up in an avoidable conflict. They have the means to end this RIGHT NOW. Peacefully. They know we don't want war as much as they don't want a hostile nuclear Iran with the capability to target Moscow. But they also know that if we don't get a peaceful solution, we will go to war over this. Either way, they get something they want or failing that, a defanged Iran and US DoD tied up which will allow them to be more aggressing along their periphery. This has nothing to do with me being right. It's just the way $hit is.

Now I accept that I might be wrong.  Obama might be spinning this thing out so that, if airstrikes do become the only alternative, he can say that we exhausted every avenue.  If so, I will be quite effusive with praise should that happen (I'll even accept if it happens accidentally).  The problem is, right now he looks very weak and afraid.  I'm not the only one who senses this.  Chavez is moving troops to the Colombian border, and I think the reason he's doing it is because he thinks he can get away with it if he attacks Colombia.

 Based on what happened to President Bush, don't you see that this is wise? Why would you launch a premature war when you cannot claim you have exhausted the alternatives? Would you really want a mother on TV claiming her child died fighting a war that could have been avoided? Wouldn't you like the support of allies during operations? These are all things that are addressed if you can say you have exhausted other options. POPULAR SUPPORT FOR A WAR is a tool of war. Popularity of the commander in chief is also a tool of war. If you squander it, you lose a very important asset. Public support is very very crucial and without being able to say all means are exhausted, you will not have
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    What allies?   11/9/2009 8:17:09 PM
Obama personally insulted the following:
 
Brown 
Merkel
Burlesconi
Sarkozy.
 
He has ticked off the governments of Israel, Egypt, Poland, the Czech Republic and Japan. He is a running joke in Venezuela and Cuba
 
He is seen as weak by Iran, Pakistan, the PRC, the DPRK, and  FRANCE.
 
He is seen as a fool by most of Latin and South America-including the key nations of Mexico and Brazil.
 
So what allies?
 
The man cannot lead a group of sanitation engineers to clean up a Macy's parade. Calling him POTUS does not describe his true performance name which is USELESS.
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/10/2009 10:18:17 AM
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8352783.stm
 
[quote]
 
Iran warning over Yemen conflict
 
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has warned against foreign intervention in the conflict between the Yemeni government and rebels.
[unquote]
 
I found it ironic. It couldn't be more foreign for Iran to be meddling Yemeni internal conflict. They were just caught supplying weapons to Yemeni insurgency. This situation may have significant repercussion in the area. We'll see.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy