Father of Proliferation, A.Q. Khan, Talks

Discussion in 'Iran' started by Si modo, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    S. Aftergood, FAS (no link, email)

    Here is a link to the interview, though: Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan Discusses Nuclear Program in TV Talk Show


    So, the public first became aware of uranium enrichment activities at Natanz in 2002. It's seven years later, and the Iranians aren't slackers.

    Promoting and supporting nuclear arms non-proliferation are in the security interests of most of the world. An increase in the number of nuclear-armed nations increases the risk of those weapons actually being used and of nuclear weapons and material falling into the hands of extremists; and it increases other nations’ desire to develop nuclear weapons for deterrent. In a post Cold War world, new players in the nuclear arms race have emerged, notably North Korea and Iran. While there is no evidence that Iran has developed a weapon; there is significant evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion that Iran is moving toward becoming a nuclear-armed state. Preventing Iran’s progress in this area is a high priority in US foreign affairs.

    As a non-nuclear weapons signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to research, develop, and produce nuclear energy and technology for peaceful purposes. With this right comes the responsibility to disclose fully all activities involving nuclear material to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran has built a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and Iran claims that their enrichment activities are for nuclear energy and research, not for producing weapons-grade uranium. However, there are questions concerning Iran’s enrichment activities.

    Uranium enrichment is a stagewise operation where the enrichment capacity and capability of the facility determine how many stages (centrifuges) the facility will require. There is no significant civilian need for highly enriched uranium (HEU, >20% U-235), thus one would assume that any nation interested in peaceful uses of nuclear material would be interested in producing only low-enriched uranium (LEU, 20%>%U-235>0.7%). As there currently is no shortage of LEU in the world market, the feasibility of constructing new enrichment capacity seems economically unattractive. The number of centrifuges Iran has operating at Natanz is greater than 1,600 and Iran claims to have a total of 6,000 centrifuges. Natanz is capable of producing HEU; there is reasonable suspicion that this facility has been built to produce HEU. The fact that Iran has been less than transparent about their enrichment activities to the IAEA further supports this reasonable suspicion.

    Although Iran denies any interest in developing nuclear weapons, its activities at Natanz and lack of transparency are inconsistent with its claims. To date, Iran has rejected international efforts to restrict their enrichment activities. The international community has imposed sanctions and offered incentives, yet Iran continues its enrichment activities. More specific incentives (US proposed Global Uranium Fuel Bank) combined with possible additional and harsher sanctions (those recently proposed by Congress) must be considered in future negotiations. The US has requested that Iran participate in negotiations by this autumn; the ultimate goal of these negotiations is to limit Iran’s enrichment activities. Their agreement to participate in these talks will be a positive change in Iran’s tactics. However, if Iran refuses to participate, most of the groundwork for harsher sanctions has been put into place by Congress last month. All nations must be creative and more specific in proposed incentives and sanctions than they have been in the past, since preventing Iran’s continued progress toward becoming a nuclear-armed state is a high security interest of the world.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2009
  2. The_Halfmoon
    Offline

    The_Halfmoon Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    300
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cana-duh
    Ratings:
    +22
    it's absolutely obvious they're developing the technology for military purposes

    I don't think they wiill use it nor build a full weapon. They'll just be within an inch of building it and use as a deterrent.

    Nonetheless, they're clearly within a few years or even months of being there
     
  3. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Amazingly enough, some are still in denial and that is just stunning to me. Probably because I am such a proponent of non-proliferation. It's a passion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2009
  4. The_Halfmoon
    Offline

    The_Halfmoon Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    300
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cana-duh
    Ratings:
    +22
    After signing it's first major agreement on uranian enrichment with the Europeans (and I mean a matter of hours maybe days at most), the Iranians attempted to amend the agreement to include 20 centrifuges for research purposes.

    It took the English in the 60s 16 or so centrifuges running for 2 years to master enrichment. The Iranians knew this, and made almost no attempts to hide the fact that they were basically going to do just that. I mean it's ridiculous to say they just want civilian energy. Again, would they nuke Israel? no, it would not be rational and I believe Khamenei when he says he would not even build a bomb. But he would certainly like to have all the tools ready, and it's clearly what the Iranians want to do.

    There's actually a video somewhere, where a researcher demonstrates the capabilities of a game theory program designed to predict future political events. And it takes into factor 80 different power centers of Iran to ask "will they build nuclear weapons?" and it basically says as much. A rational Iran would not BUILD but would have the materials ready. I guess they're learning from Bush and "keeping all options on the table"
     
  5. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    If you can find that vid, I wouldn't mind seeing it. But, don't go out of your way.

    I believe that they will go all the way to at least a test. They really haven't much cred in the press release department, so when they do have a bomb capability, they need to test it for cred. Remember this?

    [​IMG]

    Or their announcement last summer that they had captured an American military jet?

    Their cred is shot.

    Nothing like a ground test to get deterrent attention and cred.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2009
  6. rhodescholar
    Offline

    rhodescholar Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,442
    Thanks Received:
    760
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Strafing Iranian RGs with my .50 Cal
    Ratings:
    +1,806
    You have to understand who "they" are, mostly far leftists who despise jews/israel and the US, and will take the side of ANY nation or entity that operates against US/West/Israeli interests.

    They will use all kinds of sophistries, absurd statements, or total lies ("iran hasn't attacked anyone in 400 years") to try and justify iran's obvious nuclear weapons ambitions.

    In summary, they have an agenda to propel, and it cannot be impacted by logic, reason, or facts - it is resistant to all of those and will continue to be spewed forth until iran publicly tests its weapon, where they will transition into "Justification" mode.

    This is where they will try to explain why iran needed a nuclear weapon - and how it is justified in having one, with of course, no mention of their prior lies/illicit statements that iran "never had any intentions of building one."
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2009
  7. rhodescholar
    Offline

    rhodescholar Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,442
    Thanks Received:
    760
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Strafing Iranian RGs with my .50 Cal
    Ratings:
    +1,806
    The issue was never would they put one on a missile and launch it into israel, it has always been having the technology allows them to hand one off to hezboolah/islamic jihad/hamas or some other un-named terrorist proxy army to detonate on a fruit truck inside tel aviv.

    Can you imagine how the muslim world would react if IJ or another psychotic, suicidal terror group succeeded in using a nuke inside israel? There would be MASSIVE celebrations across the muslim world, dwarfing all of the 9/11 ones combined, and since we know that muslims would rather kills jews - even if it means killing alot of other muslims, this scenario is VERY plausible and likely.

    That is why Putin in Russia, ala Villepain back in 2003, in stating that Russia will not allow further sanctions against iran under any circumstances, has just guaranteed an israeli attack in the near future.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2009
  8. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Ain't that the truth? Both lefties and anti-Semites are 'they'. Those in the 'were' category are fucking hypocrits. The anti-Semites used the opposition during the last administration to promote their bigoted ideals. The opposition was a willing tool. I wonder how that feels? How pathetic. Now, with the opposition's man in the catbird seat, hopefully the bigots will STFU. Unfortunately, that may mean the bigots will revert to violent means again for their message of anti-Semitism.
     
  9. The_Halfmoon
    Offline

    The_Halfmoon Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    300
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cana-duh
    Ratings:
    +22
    you do have a point on that one

    the video is here, and I believe it's from before the protests, so that may not have factored in (but it seems they were correct in the assessment that economic freedom would be a major issue)


    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts5MKtXNpMQ[/ame]
     

Share This Page