• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Inspectors find evidence of uranium enriched beyond that needed for reactors in Iran

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
No, but keeping up the farce of our current "security" is a slap in the face to anyone with half a brain. I'm simply arguing for a reality check. We are either going to do something about it or we're going to pretend to do something about it. It's obviously not the former in either case, so we are left with the latter. It's simply a sham intended to assuage the anxiety of the zombie masses at an enormous cost.
What cost is that?

Or is it the other way around- where we pretend that the boogeyman is out to get us, a la Iraqi WMD's? Niger Uranium? "Pretty well confirmed" reports of AlQ meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague?

Anybody who puts much faith in what intelligence agencies & our govt tell us about such things when they're beating the drums of war is a chump, forgetting that they manipulate public opinion to serve an agenda. Not to mention that any American who trusts the Israelis any more than they trust the Iranians has been hopelessly propagandized.

I mean, wtf? Do I need to quote Goering again?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
They don't need to use them because there's no need. All they have to do is intimidate or threaten or attack conventionally with the confidence that a nuclear poison pill gives. Anything goes.
You seem to be describing Israel...
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
They don't need to use them because there's no need. All they have to do is intimidate or threaten or attack conventionally with the confidence that a nuclear poison pill gives. Anything goes.
And isn't Israel doing that right now?

If you're Iran, you look at your neighbors on either side, and say to yourself "gee, would they have invaded either country if they had nuclear weapons?" And then you look at the US and Israeli threats. How would it be rational if they didn't want nukes?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
And isn't Israel doing that right now?

If you're Iran, you look at your neighbors on either side, and say to yourself "gee, would they have invaded either country if they had nuclear weapons?" And then you look at the US and Israeli threats. How would it be rational if they didn't want nukes?
They only problem with that argument is that Iran claims it does not want nukes. They have repeatedly proclaimed the capabilities are for purely nuclear power generation and nothing more.

However, your reasoning does explain why so few trust them at their word.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
And isn't Israel doing that right now?

If you're Iran, you look at your neighbors on either side, and say to yourself "gee, would they have invaded either country if they had nuclear weapons?" And then you look at the US and Israeli threats. How would it be rational if they didn't want nukes?
There is a difference between "Iran" and the leaders in charge. The latter are the ones who have power, and as I have pointed out are all to glad to use it barbarically against their own. They've also made a call to recruit terrorists and have used them against neighbors as a matter of course. It's hard to think of people who flay their own as being particularly responsible. Israel for it's part has nuclear weapons, but note it doesn't have a history of behaving as Iran. When a nations leaders embrace and employ terrorism as SOP it's hard to credit them as being good potential stewards of nuclear weapons. The main difference is that the leadership has shown a propensity for cruelty and unconcern about how it attacks it's neighbors. Israel has had the capability to slag it's opponents or coerce neighboring nations to do it's bidding for quite some time and has not. While there are policies that Israel has that I do not approve of it's hard to imagine them blackmailing other nations when it could have done so rather overtly for some time, nor is it easy to dismiss the cruelty of the Iranian leadership towards its own and thinking they'll be nicer to those who live next door once they have constraints removed.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
One other thing- LL will tell you that Israel is a pipsqueak of a nation who exists only because it has nukes. Without them Israel would already be gone.

Contrast that with Iran who had a major problem in the form of Saddam, but he's exited our reality and Iraq is no threat. That's another difference between the two. The Saudis for example won't attack Iran or the reverse even though they can't stand each other. One has no great advantage over the other. That would change with a nuclear Iran and if they had nukes then everyone else would be seeking the same. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,529
3,086
126
And isn't Israel doing that right now? -- thats just assinine! NO Israel is not using any nuclear weapons they might have as a means to influence or intimidate other countries.

If you're Iran, you look at your neighbors on either side, and say to yourself "gee, would they have invaded either country if they had nuclear weapons?" And then you look at the US and Israeli threats. How would it be rational if they didn't want nukes?
No if you are Iran you look around you and say these incompetent Arabs couldn`t win a single war with Israel even with overwhelming forces........
Perhaps nuclear weapons can succeed where incompetence couldn`t......
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
It's only a matter of time before we have another terrorist attack. Should we make it easier?
When was it that Iranian terrorists attacked us, anyway?
As usual trying to derail the thread with a meaningless bloviation...
From the master bloviator himself. Where's you usual raving about the IAEA pulling out of Iran completely, anyway? The innuendo & personal attacks crafted around that deliberate lie?

I addressed an attempted derail- you're apparently supporting it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
One other thing- LL will tell you that Israel is a pipsqueak of a nation who exists only because it has nukes. Without them Israel would already be gone.

Contrast that with Iran who had a major problem in the form of Saddam, but he's exited our reality and Iraq is no threat. That's another difference between the two. The Saudis for example won't attack Iran or the reverse even though they can't stand each other. One has no great advantage over the other. That would change with a nuclear Iran and if they had nukes then everyone else would be seeking the same. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Haybasusa, I take some offense at anyone distorting my position. Numerically Israel is a very tiny country, but mainly thanks to the arms they have the best army and air force in the mid-east. And able in fact, Israel can defeat all their neighbors combined. So obviously Israel does not need any nukes to survive.

After that Hayabasusa, IMHO, I find your analysis rather shallow, if Iran is going to go all nuclear electric, its going to take decades to refine enough uranium to fuel all the required reactors. After that Iran is already talking about supplying electricity to its neighbors, and if they want reactors of their own, Iran will be able to fuel it. To a large extent, nuclear reactors may be the only answer for arid and semi arid regions, because it takes a tremendous amount of energy to desalinate sea water.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Haybasusa, I take some offense at anyone distorting my position. Numerically Israel is a very tiny country, but mainly thanks to the arms they have the best army and air force in the mid-east. And able in fact, Israel can defeat all their neighbors combined. So obviously Israel does not need any nukes to survive.

After that Hayabasusa, IMHO, I find your analysis rather shallow, if Iran is going to go all nuclear electric, its going to take decades to refine enough uranium to fuel all the required reactors. After that Iran is already talking about supplying electricity to its neighbors, and if they want reactors of their own, Iran will be able to fuel it. To a large extent, nuclear reactors may be the only answer for arid and semi arid regions, because it takes a tremendous amount of energy to desalinate sea water.
I haven't the time to address the first, but if Iran wants to use the most common form of reactor and doesn't play games with inspections then it looks like the 5+1 will let them enrich to what is needed.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
I haven't the time to address the first, but if Iran wants to use the most common form of reactor and doesn't play games with inspections then it looks like the 5+1 will let them enrich to what is needed.
Which is a major change from our previous "stop all enrichment now!" demands, a very positive step.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So you're saying that...
I am saying that Iran is purposefully working towards the creation of nuclear weapons. IMO, it would be stupid for them to do anything but that.

Are you saying they are NOT working towards the creation of nuclear weapons?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
I am saying that Iran is purposefully working towards the creation of nuclear weapons. IMO, it would be stupid for them to do anything but that.

Are you saying they are NOT working towards the creation of nuclear weapons?
You're stating your opinion as fact, and attempted to equate a minor production purity overrun with deliberate creation of weapons grade material of a much, much higher purity. That's dishonest.

You're trying to build your usual strawman, too. I'm in no position to accurately gauge Iranian intentions, nor are you. What I'm confident about is that nuclear weapons cannot exist w/o weapons grade materials, and that there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has ever created any significant amounts of it. Ongoing IAEA efforts assure us of that, and serve to keep Iran honest in that regard, even if they might act differently under other circumstances.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
You're stating your opinion as fact, and attempted to equate a minor production purity overrun with deliberate creation of weapons grade material of a much, much higher purity. That's dishonest.

You're trying to build your usual strawman, too. I'm in no position to accurately gauge Iranian intentions, nor are you. What I'm confident about is that nuclear weapons cannot exist w/o weapons grade materials, and that there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has ever created any significant amounts of it. Ongoing IAEA efforts assure us of that, and serve to keep Iran honest in that regard, even if they might act differently under other circumstances.
I think you are just overlooking the point cybrsage is trying to make. From his (and, for that matter all of our) knowledge, 27% vs 20% is not as insignificant as it may numerically seem.

I don't mean to speak for him, but based on the aforementioned understanding, I think he is arguing that it is plausible to think that Iran did this purposefully.

With that in mind, it is still at levels where plausible deniability is legitimate.

Honestly, if Iran would simply allow IAEA inspectors access at the times they request, they could really calm tensions.

As it stands, they refuse to allow the aforementioned access and when they do, higher grade Uranium is found which increases suspicions and tensions with all parties. That leaves us where we are now... arguing about something where only they have the absolute truth.

-GP
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
They probably did make a mistake and it's going to cost them now. Those poor people can't even have nuclear energy.

I think you are just overlooking the point cybrsage is trying to make. From his (and, for that matter all of our) knowledge, 27% vs 20% is not as insignificant as it may numerically seem. I don't mean to speak for him, but based on the aforementioned understanding, I think he is arguing that it is plausible to think that Iran did this purposefully. With that in mind, it is still at levels where plausible deniability is legitimate. Honestly, if Iran would simply allow IAEA inspectors access at the times they request, they could really calm tensions. As it stands, they refuse to allow the aforementioned access and when they do, higher grade Uranium is found which increases suspicions and tensions with all parties. That leaves us where we are now... arguing about something where only they have the absolute truth. -GP
Why would Iran attack us even if they had nuclear weapons?
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
They probably did make a mistake and it's going to cost them now. Those poor people can't even have nuclear energy.

Why would Iran attack us even if they had nuclear weapons?
Did you even read my post? Here, I'll quote the relevant part again for you:

I think you are just overlooking the point cybrsage is trying to make. From his (and, for that matter all of our) knowledge, 27% vs 20% is not as insignificant as it may numerically seem.
If you have anything to refute the aforementioned statement, why don't you post it instead of ignoring a legitimate question/claim.

Why would Iran attack us even if they had nuclear weapons?
Who was arguing that they would? Who knows what they would do with it -- which is what leads me into this...

The problem with Iran having nuclear weapons, is that the government is unstable and the various extremist groups that live in the region could also get their hands on said warhead. It is the irrational and unpredictability that separates Iran (Syria, et al) from other nations who we don't necessarily agree with.

-GP
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You're stating your opinion as fact, and attempted to equate a minor production purity overrun with deliberate creation of weapons grade material of a much, much higher purity. That's dishonest.
Any nation in Iran's position, and with Iran's knowledge and technical ability, would develop nuclear weapons. It is the smart thing to do. So unless you are saying the Iranian government is filled with idiots, I do not see why you would disagree. At this point in human events, nuclear weapons are defensive only weapons. When you have them, you suddenly become invasion proof.

However, I did notice that while you quoted the question, you failed to answer it. Here it is again:

Are you saying they are NOT working towards the creation of nuclear weapons?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
You're stating your opinion as fact, and attempted to equate a minor production purity overrun with deliberate creation of weapons grade material of a much, much higher purity. That's dishonest.

You're trying to build your usual strawman, too. I'm in no position to accurately gauge Iranian intentions, nor are you. What I'm confident about is that nuclear weapons cannot exist w/o weapons grade materials, and that there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has ever created any significant amounts of it. Ongoing IAEA efforts assure us of that, and serve to keep Iran honest in that regard, even if they might act differently under other circumstances.
25% overrun is not accidental. 5-10% might be accidental.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
They probably did make a mistake and it's going to cost them now. Those poor people can't even have nuclear energy.

Why would Iran attack us even if they had nuclear weapons?
What its going to cost them is a further look. If you haven't been following along the 5+1(hopefully you know about them) have expressed willingness to allow 5% enrichment. That is sufficient for nuclear power.

Now your bottom gets smacked regarding "Why would Iran attack us..." First, many of us who see the Iranian leadership as an ill have the understanding that nuclear weapons do not have to be detonated to be used, and I've covered that already. Where you fail is in defending Iran then saying elsewhere that the US is plotting a nuclear war in the stupidest war which will result in the death of a significant part of our species and send civilization bsk to the 1800's if were lucky without a hint as to why. Its astounding.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY