Iran Joins Nuclear Club - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iran Joins Nuclear Club
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »

Posted by josh4 on Apr-12-2006 09:39:

Iran Joins Nuclear Club

... with uranium enrichment.

As can be expected, the Big 3 & US are up in arms. Even Russia is critizing the announcement (wtf did they expect). Israel is very concerned, as they like their spot on the map.

So Iran is another step closer to announcing, "Yeah, about that 'Peaceful Use' stuff... We lied."

Clearly Iran can not be allowed to go very much further with this.

pick your source

Posted by Renegade on Apr-12-2006 09:54:

I heard about this on the radio tonight. They interviewed a guy from the Australian nuclear body (I forget the acronym, sorry) and he said that the speech was more politics than an accurate reflection of where Iran is at with regards to producing a nuclear weapon at the moment. In order to produce a nuclear bomb you need thousands of centrifuges (I believe he said up to 50,000) and Iran is only known to have 164. The plutonium has to be of a certain "grade" (I believe he said 90% refined) and Iran is still a long way from acquiring this (3.5% refined from memory?).

I'll see if I can find some links that back up what I'm saying, but I don't think this is anything to get too worried about just yet...

EDIT: Close enough.

quote:
"Iran said it had become a nuclear power like other countries pursuing peaceful nuclear programs," said Mikhailov, who heads the Strategic Stability Institute think tank. "Indeed, uranium enrichment at 3.5% is a medium used in fuel rods at nuclear power plants."

The enrichment level announced by Ahmadinejad falls far short of weapons-grade material, which needs at least 80% enrichment, Mikhailov said, adding that Iran should take a realistic view, given its current enrichment capacities.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060412/45719776.html

quote:
The IAEA found Iran had probably carried out test enrichments of uranium with its centrifuges long before this.

� A claim of 3.5% enrichment is not much of an achievement if true.

� There is no clear evidence that Iran has brought the limited 164 centrifuge chain at Natanz on-line in any kind of sustained operation. A one shot, limited output test has little meaning.

� These are old P-1 centrifuges. It takes thousands operating continuously for a year to have major output and 10,000s to get seriously into the weapons grade production.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...=1833030&page=1

Posted by Q5echo on Apr-12-2006 10:17:

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
and Iran is only known to have 164. The plutonium has to be of a certain "grade" (I believe he said 90% refined) and Iran is still a long way from acquiring this (3.5% refined from memory?).

coulda swore i read somewhere they were in possesion of more centrifuges than that. i'll look.

a "long way" on the atomic scale is "relative"...get it? dumb. anyway this should shorten the timeline for everyone a bit.

quote:
September, 1944 -
* At this point K-25 is half built, but no usable diffusion barriers have been produced. The Y-12 plant is operating at only 0.05% efficiency. The total production of highly enriched uranium to date is a few grams.

December, 1944 -
* Y-12 output climbs to 90 grams of highly enriched uranium a day.

August 6, 1945 -
* 0916:02 (8:16:02 Hiroshima time) - Little Boy explodes at an altitude of 1850 feet, 550 feet from the aim point, the Aioi Bridge, with a yield of 12.5-18 kt (best estimate is 15 kt).

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq10.html

that was when the technology didn't even exist just shortly before the next crucial steps needed to be completed to the end we are all familiar with.

according to the archive, the first "racetrack", Y-12 consisted of "96 units" (centrifuges) when started in OCT '43 but had trouble with the magnets. however, a year later it's pumping out 90g a day. only 40kg is needed to yield a 15kt device.

Posted by Renegade on Apr-12-2006 11:26:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
coulda swore i read somewhere they were in possesion of more centrifuges than that. i'll look.

According to this they only have 164 and it would take them two decades to produce a bomb with that many:

quote:
It would take Iran about two decades to yield enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb with its current cascade of 164 centrifuges. But Tehran says it wants to install 3,000 centrifuges, enough to produce material for a warhead in a year.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/intern...y=1144805877000

More technically:

quote:
An implosion weapon using U235 would require about 20 kg of 90% U235. Roughly 176 kg of natural uranium would be required per kg of HEU product, and about 230 SWU per kg of HEU, thus requiring a total of about 4,600 SWU per weapon. To enrich natural uranium for one gun-type uranium bomb would requires roughly 14,000 SWUs. Thus, producing one HEU weapon in a year would require between 1,100 to perhaps 3,500 centrifuges.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/i...-centrifuge.htm

quote:
a "long way" on the atomic scale is "relative"...get it?

I'm struggling to find information about how accessible these additional centrifuges that Iran wants to build would be in terms of cost or technological know-how (Iran may not be able to afford to, or know how to, build these additional centrifuges) but until they are built, or it seems that they are close to being built, the issue isn't urgent in the sense that Iran is currently on the brink of "getting the bomb". By any definition, Iran is still a fair way from producing even a single nuclear bomb, let alone an entire nuclear arsenal.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Apr-12-2006 11:34:

yeah, ive read the same; that they have far fewer (known) centrifuges than is necessary to make a bomb any time soon.

however, if everything is so honest and forthright, whats with how they are going about it all? theyre thumbing their nose at the international community and i cant see for what reason?? if things were a bit more open, honest & transparent, id be worried a lot less.

but the anti-semitic commentary from the president as well as his contention that israel should be wiped off the map isnt cool in my books. sure, he might just be full of hot air but its still not helpful on the international stage.

anywayz, heres a link from an article i found really quite interesting.

from the new yorker

(i have no idea about the quality of the paper nor the journalist, i just took the arguments at face value)

Posted by dcougar99 on Apr-12-2006 15:04:

they are far from a nuke... but the mainstream and administration would like to scare the shit outa everyone and get higher news rate etc. "we gota get them now!" bull shit as usual

Posted by hardcore trancer on Apr-12-2006 15:13:

quote:
Originally posted by dcougar99
they are far from a nuke... but the mainstream and administration would like to scare the shit outa everyone and get higher news rate etc. "we gota get them now!" bull shit as usual

+1

Iam glad that they can now finally bring electricity to millions of people that go through constant blackouts daily.
Media and the white house is trying to hype all this for another war.

Posted by Kapedano on Apr-12-2006 16:45:

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
+1

Iam glad that they can now finally bring electricity to millions of people that go through constant blackouts daily.
Media and the white house is trying to hype all this for another war.

you make me laugh, thanks

Posted by tranceNlife on Apr-12-2006 17:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Kapedan
you make me laugh, thanks

As I said in this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=321913

It seems 'lol' is your only defense.

Posted by habsfan on Apr-12-2006 18:04:

Forgive my ignorance regarding this matter, but why shouldn't Iran be allowed nuclear technology? Or a nuclear bomb for that matter?

India, Pakistan, North Korea all recently produced their own nukes and we didn't hear nearly as much "evil empire" BS from the media.

US, UK, Israel all have nukes. I mean, Iraq just got invaded for nothing and now the US is setting up military bases there. If I were Iran, I'd be developing a nuke as fast as possible.

So lets say Iran gets a nuke. It would only guarantee that they don't get invaded. Do you really think they would use it to strike Israel or the US? Come on . Doing so would pretty much guarantee their destruction.

So, worst case scenario, Iran develops nuclear weapons and no one can invade/attack them. So what?

Posted by Kapedano on Apr-12-2006 18:38:

quote:
Originally posted by tranceNlife
As I said in this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=321913

It seems 'lol' is your only defense.

your an idiot purple, i wasnt defending myself, i was just laughing at the statement, so stfu idiot.

Posted by jonSun on Apr-12-2006 19:08:

Posted by Alex on Apr-12-2006 21:07:

To the guy that said "So what if we cant invade them", well with a government as radical as Iran's even if their leader has no intentions of nuking Israel/USA he can still do some crazy/awful shit within his own borders and no one will be able to do anything about it.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Apr-12-2006 23:15:

quote:
Originally posted by habsfan
Forgive my ignorance regarding this matter, but why shouldn't Iran be allowed nuclear technology? Or a nuclear bomb for that matter?

anyone that thinks iran obtaining nuclear weapons is a good thing is a fvcking moron. not directing this at you, just telling you how it is.

quote:
Originally posted by habsfan
So lets say Iran gets a nuke. It would only guarantee that they don't get invaded. Do you really think they would use it to strike Israel or the US? Come on . Doing so would pretty much guarantee their destruction.

firstly, on what grounds do you believe possessing a nuclear weapon will prevent them from being invaded? no, im not sure whether they would strike at israel or not. how can you be so sure? do you listen to anything the iranian president says? i mean seriously, where are you getting this 100% certainty from? christ.

have you considered the possibility, given that govts close ties with extremists (indeed, the president used to be a so-called terrorist according to some) you dont worry about warheads being given to third parties?

quote:
Originally posted by habsfan
So, worst case scenario, Iran develops nuclear weapons and no one can invade/attack them. So what?

theres so much more to the problem than that your opinion is laughable. ever considered nuclear proliferation is a bad thing in and of itself? that we'll always live under the nuke cloud as long as states have the bomb, and allowing more and more nations to acquire it isnt helping anyone in the long run?

yeah, iran having nukes is a safe and fair outcome for all

Posted by habsfan on Apr-13-2006 00:00:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
firstly, on what grounds do you believe possessing a nuclear weapon will prevent them from being invaded? no, im not sure whether they would strike at israel or not. how can you be so sure? do you listen to anything the iranian president says? i mean seriously, where are you getting this 100% certainty from? christ.

Having a nuclear weapon is a huge deterrent from being invaded/attacked. When was the last time a nuclear power was attacked? And no, they wouldn't strike Israel because Israel has anywhere from 100-200 nuclear warheads. I doubt Iran would "waste" a bomb that took them so long to create only to get absolutely slaughtered.

quote:

have you considered the possibility, given that govts close ties with extremists (indeed, the president used to be a so-called terrorist according to some) you dont worry about warheads being given to third parties?

The president was a university professor and mayor of Tehran prior to taking office. Terrorist?
Again, I doubt Iran would risk giving away a nuke that was so troublesome to make in the first place. Mind you, this is my opinion, but if you put yourself in their shoes, would you just give a nuke away to a radical extremist group? What good would that do Iran?

quote:

theres so much more to the problem than that your opinion is laughable. ever considered nuclear proliferation is a bad thing in and of itself? that we'll always live under the nuke cloud as long as states have the bomb, and allowing more and more nations to acquire it isnt helping anyone in the long run?

yeah, iran having nukes is a safe and fair outcome for all

Yes, I did oversimplify the problem didn't I ? Yes, nuclear proliferation is bad so why is Iran trying to get one? Maybe cause Israel has them? And they're the only country in the middle east with them. I have an idea....take away Israel's nukes and you'll have your nuclear-free middle east !
Unfortunately, as long as nuclear weapons are seen as the currency of great powers, I don't see Iran giving up it's quest to develop them.

Posted by habsfan on Apr-13-2006 00:08:

quote:
Originally posted by Alex
To the guy that said "So what if we cant invade them", well with a government as radical as Iran's even if their leader has no intentions of nuking Israel/USA he can still do some crazy/awful shit within his own borders and no one will be able to do anything about it.

So you're saying that if Iran gets a nuke, it will finally be able to say "You can't stop me now!!! I'm gonna do all kinds of crazy/awful shit to my citizens!!! Muahahaha!!!"

I know the whole "you've been brainwashed by western media" thing is overdone, but come on man!

Yeah, they may not enjoy the same freedoms that we have, but it's definately not some barbaric regime. And before you start listing off all the atrocities within Iran, please list your sources. The media tend to get a little imaginative whenever the governement has some kind of agenda. Weird how that works eh?

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Apr-13-2006 00:43:

quote:
Originally posted by habsfan
The president was a university professor and mayor of Tehran prior to taking office. Terrorist?

quote:

This view has been reinforced by allegations that Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of the Revolutionary Guards in 1986, may have been involved in terrorist activities in the late eighties. (There are gaps in Ahmadinejad’s official biography in this period.) Ahmadinejad has reportedly been connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a terrorist who has been implicated in the deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the security chief of Hezbollah; he remains on the F.B.I.’s list of most-wanted terrorists.

Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the Iranian government “are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They’re apocalyptic Shiites. If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and missiles—you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there’s no reason to back off.”

link

quote:
Originally posted by habsfan
Again, I doubt Iran would risk giving away a nuke that was so troublesome to make in the first place.

again, this is merely your conjecture. you doubt do you? funnily enough i dont give two shits what you doubt. nobody should have nuclear weapons, and enlarging the club of countries that do helps no one.

quote:
Originally posted by habsfan
Mind you, this is my opinion, but if you put yourself in their shoes, would you just give a nuke away to a radical extremist group? What good would that do Iran?

see quote above.

quote:
Originally posted by habsfan
Yes, I did oversimplify the problem didn't I ? Yes, nuclear proliferation is bad so why is Iran trying to get one? Maybe cause Israel has them? And they're the only country in the middle east with them. I have an idea....take away Israel's nukes and you'll have your nuclear-free middle east !
Unfortunately, as long as nuclear weapons are seen as the currency of great powers, I don't see Iran giving up it's quest to develop them.

hey, way to go bringing up total irrelevancies. this argument isnt about whether israel should have nuclear weapons or not is it mate? yes, your idea about a nuclear-free israel is a good one, but its not the point is it? two wrongs dont make a right.

call me crazy but i dont think any country that argues for the destruction of another should have nukes. iran has signed treaties and should be held accountable for those agreements. whether the US or China or Zimbabwe have nuclear weapons is irrelevant as far as im concerned. i dont care whether its iran or new zealand. more nukes is not a good thing for anyone.

Posted by habsfan on Apr-13-2006 01:29:

Look Raistlin (good name btw), I know more nukes is a bad thing.

But I think people need to put themselves in Iran's shoes. You're Iran.

The US has been meddling in your affairs for 50 years, they invade your neighbour, prop up a puppet regime to serve their interest, claim that YOU are in the "axis of evil", and start spurting out loads of propaganda that you're developing nukes, support terrorists, want to destroy Israel, etc.

This is all leading to something isn't it? There's a reason behind it. They want something - whether that something is oil, dollar hegemony, so-called "stability" in the region, whatever. They are preparing the American public just like they prepared them for Iraq.

So if you were Iran, you look at history. You see what's happened. You know where you stand. Wouldn't YOU want a deterrent. Something, anything to avoid getting trampled? Yes, nukes are bad, but what else would deter the US?

Again, I'm not advocating nuclear proliferation. I'm simply asking you to step back, and look at it through Iran's point of view.

Posted by hardcore trancer on Apr-13-2006 02:38:

Looks like they are about to pull another Iraq on Iran.They will go to UN and then they'll attack them anyways.This fuckin Admin is using UN again for another invasion.This time they gonna fuckin get it good though.

Iran will rape their ass like never before.

Posted by jonSun on Apr-13-2006 04:03:

Posted by josh4 on Apr-13-2006 04:48:

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Looks like they are about to pull another Iraq on Iran.They will go to UN and then they'll attack them anyways.This fuckin Admin is using UN again for another invasion.This time they gonna fuckin get it good though.

It will be a long time coming before any military action is taken against Iran. Though if the case is brought to the UN for action against Iran, then they won't have much choice but to go along with it.

The US is not a major player in the battles with Iran over their nuclear habits. The US has pretty much been kept out of the negotiations. So the UN or UN members have been doing most of the work and Iran for the most part has not been very coroperative.

If Iran continues to pursue Nuclear interests and its thought they are even a little close to producing any type of weapon then the US is not going to be the only one to think they should be stopped by force. Though this will only happen if all other avenues have been exhausted. As others have said, Iran is not close to having the materials to make a bomb so this scenario won't become plausible for quite some time.

That isn't to say the Bush administration won't try to speed up the process and make the case that military action is needed against Iran sooner than later. But I don't see how a war with Iran could even be possible with the current state of things. For one, the army barely has enough resources to handle Iraq at the moment.

Posted by Alex on Apr-13-2006 04:57:

quote:
Originally posted by habsfan
So you're saying that if Iran gets a nuke, it will finally be able to say "You can't stop me now!!! I'm gonna do all kinds of crazy/awful shit to my citizens!!! Muahahaha!!!"

I know the whole "you've been brainwashed by western media" thing is overdone, but come on man!

Yeah, they may not enjoy the same freedoms that we have, but it's definately not some barbaric regime. And before you start listing off all the atrocities within Iran, please list your sources. The media tend to get a little imaginative whenever the governement has some kind of agenda. Weird how that works eh?

I didn't mean to say that Iran's government was AWFUL to it's people, but they arent the best, and with the protection of a bomb they could quite simply stop worrying about any intervention and either A) Not change that much or B) Become more atrocious/awful/extreme without anyone being able to really do anything.

I know Iranian-Canadians and they say themselves that Iran isnt the greatest place to live, that being said they are perhaps in a small demographic (Based on the fact they chose to leave, clearly meaning they felt strongly about their decision).

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Apr-13-2006 05:00:

^^ exactly @ josh4. Russia has also jumped on board in comdemning iran as well. are they evil with ulterior motives as well?

just coz america does or says something doesnt make them automatically wrong.

Posted by Alex on Apr-13-2006 05:01:

Posted by josh4 on Apr-13-2006 05:10:

Russia condemed the action because the uranium enrichment went against the resolutions put on Iran by the IAEA. So essentially, Iran broke the rules. For the most part, Russia has been willing to let Iran do the nuclear work, but only under (Russian) supervision. If Iran shows this much disregard for the sanctions placed on them, then yes it is enough to be worried and not trust them - especially when we're talking about nuclear activity.

Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »