• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iran Closes In on Ability to Build a Nuclear Bomb

LA Times Article

Tehran's reactor program masks strides toward weapons capability, a Times investigation finds. France warns against exports to Islamic Republic.

By Douglas Frantz, Times Staff Writer

VIENNA ? After more than a decade of working behind layers of front companies and in hidden laboratories, Iran appears to be in the late stages of developing the capacity to build a nuclear bomb.

Iran insists that like many countries it is only building commercial nuclear reactors to generate electricity for homes and factories. "Iran's efforts in the field of nuclear technology are focused on civilian application and nothing else," President Mohammad Khatami said on state television in February. "This is the legitimate right of the Iranian people."

But a three-month investigation by The Times ? drawing on previously secret reports, international officials, independent experts, Iranian exiles and intelligence sources in Europe and the Middle East ? uncovered strong evidence that Iran's commercial program masks a plan to become the world's next nuclear power. The country has been engaged in a pattern of clandestine activity that has concealed weapons work from international inspectors. Technology and scientists from Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan have propelled Iran's nuclear program much closer to producing a bomb than Iraq ever was.

No one is certain when Iran might produce its first atomic weapon. Some experts said two or three years; others believe the government has probably not given a final go-ahead. But it is clear that Iran is moving purposefully and rapidly toward acquiring the capability.

Among the findings:

? A confidential report prepared by the French government in May concluded that Iran is surprisingly close to having enriched uranium or plutonium for a bomb. The French warned other governments to exercise "the most serious vigilance on their exports to Iran and Iranian front companies," according to a copy of the report provided by a foreign intelligence service.

? Samples of uranium taken by U.N. inspectors in Iran in June tested positive for enrichment levels high enough to be consistent with an attempt to build a nuclear weapon, according to a foreign intelligence officer and an American diplomat. The Reuters news service first reported the possibility that the material was weapons-grade last month.

? Iran is concealing several weapons research laboratories and evidence of past activity at a plant disguised as a watch-making factory in a Tehran suburb. In June, U.N. inspectors were refused access to two large rooms and barred from testing samples at the factory, called the Kalaye Electric Co.

? Tehran secretly imported 1.8 tons of nuclear material from China in 1991 and processed some of it to manufacture uranium metal, which would be of no use in Iran's commercial program but would be integral to weapons production.

? As early as 1989, Pakistani generals offered to sell Iran nuclear weapons technology. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist regarded by the United States as a purveyor of nuclear secrets, has helped Iran for years. "Pakistan's role was bigger from the beginning than we thought," said a Middle Eastern intelligence official.

? North Korean military scientists recently were monitored entering Iranian nuclear facilities. They are assisting in the design of a nuclear warhead, according to people inside Iran and foreign intelligence officials. So many North Koreans are working on nuclear and missile projects in Iran that a resort on the Caspian coast is set aside for their exclusive use.

? Russian scientists, sometimes traveling to Iran under false identities and working without their government's approval, are helping to complete a special reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. Moscow insists that it is providing only commercial technology for the civilian reactor under construction near the Persian Gulf port of Bushehr, an assertion disputed by Washington.

? In recent months, Iran has approached European companies to buy devices that can manipulate large volumes of radioactive material, technology to forge uranium metal and plutonium and switches that could trigger a nuclear weapon. European intelligence sources said Tehran's shopping list was a strong indication that Iran has moved to the late stages of weapons development.
 
I have no doubt that they are probably building a nuclear weapons capability. I would if I were them. The question is, what if anything will we do about it.
 
Originally posted by: AvesPKS
So, basically, the LA Times is a better intelligence-gathering organization than the US government?

Don't underestimate the intelligence gathering capabilities of news organizations. Thier ability to collate open source information, along with thier network of contacts is formidable. Most of the info in this article is from open sources.
 
One can only hope that one day even the tiniest of third world countries will have nuclear weapons in their military arsenal.
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: AvesPKS
So, basically, the LA Times is a better intelligence-gathering organization than the US government?

Don't underestimate the intelligence gathering capabilities of news organizations. Thier ability to collate open source information, along with thier network of contacts is formidable. Most of the info in this article is from open sources.

I'm not underestimating the news organizations' abilities to gather information. I feel I have been overestimating the US gov's ability to gather intelligence. Maybe Carnivore shouldn't worry me so much...
 
Funny how the French got so 'proactive' about Iran's nuclear program, I wonder why we didn't hear from them about Iraq? Oh wait , that's right! Iraq was one of their best customers!
rolleye.gif


This doesn't bode well at all. I wish the Ayatollah would just shut his lying hole, no one buys that lame "energy" argument. With Iran's huge deposits of petroleum and natural gas, I don't think anyone ever did.
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: jjones
One can only hope that one day even the tiniest of third world countries will have nuclear weapons in their military arsenal.

Huh?

I think he's suggesting that MAD would then prevent or deter the US from attacking anyone.
 
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: jjones
One can only hope that one day even the tiniest of third world countries will have nuclear weapons in their military arsenal.

Huh?

I think he's suggesting that MAD would then prevent or deter the US from attacking anyone.
I think he's suggesting that MAD carried to that extreme would be MAD.

But if MAD is MAD, wouldn't that be good?

 
Iran has a sophisticated atomic program. They're getting very close to having a bomb. They have demonstrated delivery systems (e.g. rockets capable of hitting Israel and U.S. bases in the region). They have demonstrable ties to terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah). So, why is the administration holding off on attacking them? They're barely cooperating with the IAEA...

I guess my bottom-line question is: Why was Iraq deemed such an immediate threat and warranted immediate attack, while Iran seems more likely to be a threat in the region and we're letting them go on their merry way?
 
I read an article in the news a few days ago about the USA destroying tons of chem/bio weapons in Georgia or Alabama.

Shouldn't the rest of the world be concerned that Bush has WMD? Ditto for nukes.

If there was a nation more powerful than us right now I guess it would be OK for them to invade and conquer us given our new policy of pre-emption.

Before some of you start foaming at the mouth with rage let me say my point is our current policy makes it OK for the country with the biggest guns to force its will on others.

Doesn't seem we've made much progress since the dawn of "civilization."
 
I know there are people out there with more foresight/intelligence on this issue than me.
We invade Iraq to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons (and other reasons). We will talk to N. Korea because we know they have nuclear weapons. If I was a dictator on a country or organization and I see this ... you can bet I will haul a** to develop a weapon as quickly as possible like what Iran is doing.
 
Originally posted by: chowderhead
I know there are people out there with more foresight/intelligence on this issue than me.
We invade Iraq to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons (and other reasons). We will talk to N. Korea because we know they have nuclear weapons. If I was a dictator on a country or organization and I see this ... you can bet I will haul a** to develop a weapon as quickly as possible like what Iran is doing.

You sure as hell can bet I would too.

This is where the nuclear arms proliferation dilemma really rests. And to make matters worse the Bush administration is pushing for "tactical" nuclear weapons. Smaller nukes for use in combat. Against the very treaties we expect the nations we are threatening to invade over the nuke issue to adhere to.

 
Originally posted by: BOBDN
I read an article in the news a few days ago about the USA destroying tons of chem/bio weapons in Georgia or Alabama.

Shouldn't the rest of the world be concerned that Bush has WMD? Ditto for nukes.

If there was a nation more powerful than us right now I guess it would be OK for them to invade and conquer us given our new policy of pre-emption.

Before some of you start foaming at the mouth with rage let me say my point is our current policy makes it OK for the country with the biggest guns to force its will on others.

Doesn't seem we've made much progress since the dawn of "civilization."
If you are too dense to be able to tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, and you are representative of any serious segment of our population believes, then yes, we haven't made much progress have we.

Thankfully, I believe you are a singular idiot.



 
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: BOBDN
I read an article in the news a few days ago about the USA destroying tons of chem/bio weapons in Georgia or Alabama.

Shouldn't the rest of the world be concerned that Bush has WMD? Ditto for nukes.

If there was a nation more powerful than us right now I guess it would be OK for them to invade and conquer us given our new policy of pre-emption.

Before some of you start foaming at the mouth with rage let me say my point is our current policy makes it OK for the country with the biggest guns to force its will on others.

Doesn't seem we've made much progress since the dawn of "civilization."
If you are too dense to be able to tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, and you are representative of any serious segment of our population believes, then yes, we haven't made much progress have we.
y, I believe you are a singular idiot.

The problem is that Bush equals de-evolution, reversion to a more primitive mean.

 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: BOBDN
I read an article in the news a few days ago about the USA destroying tons of chem/bio weapons in Georgia or Alabama.

Shouldn't the rest of the world be concerned that Bush has WMD? Ditto for nukes.

If there was a nation more powerful than us right now I guess it would be OK for them to invade and conquer us given our new policy of pre-emption.

Before some of you start foaming at the mouth with rage let me say my point is our current policy makes it OK for the country with the biggest guns to force its will on others.

Doesn't seem we've made much progress since the dawn of "civilization."
If you are too dense to be able to tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, and you are representative of any serious segment of our population believes, then yes, we haven't made much progress have we.
y, I believe you are a singular idiot.

The problem is that Bush equals de-evolution, reversion to a more primitive mean.

OK let's follow your logic then. In order to counter that, primitive nations like Iran need nukes? Finish your thought troll...
 
french reactors right? if so france needs some sanctions on it for being a %@# weapons of md proliforator😛
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: jjones
One can only hope that one day even the tiniest of third world countries will have nuclear weapons in their military arsenal.

Huh?

I think he's suggesting that MAD would then prevent or deter the US from attacking anyone.
I think he's suggesting that MAD carried to that extreme would be MAD.

But if MAD is MAD, wouldn't that be good?
Very close to hitting the nail on the head. I just thought that if someone like Iran has nukes, then their neighbors better get some too. After all, if we can reason that if the US has nukes, and that then it's in Iran's interest to have nukes (putting ourselves in their shoes), well, you better believe that it's in the next guy's interests to have nukes also.

Personally, I think that if the powers that be seriously wanted non-proliferation, then the best thing to do would be an agreement to an outright ban on nukes altogether. Since that's not going to happen, countries such as Pakistan already have nukes, NK has them or is on the brink of having them, Iran wants them, Iraq wanted them, and any country worth its salt is going to have an interest in acquiring them. Maybe when enough countries have nukes we'll finally realize that we should destroy these stupid, expensive, useless toys. Or maybe we'll get to see a few mushroom clouds. Either way, it's bound to be fun.

 
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: BOBDN
I read an article in the news a few days ago about the USA destroying tons of chem/bio weapons in Georgia or Alabama.

Shouldn't the rest of the world be concerned that Bush has WMD? Ditto for nukes.

If there was a nation more powerful than us right now I guess it would be OK for them to invade and conquer us given our new policy of pre-emption.

Before some of you start foaming at the mouth with rage let me say my point is our current policy makes it OK for the country with the biggest guns to force its will on others.

Doesn't seem we've made much progress since the dawn of "civilization."
If you are too dense to be able to tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, and you are representative of any serious segment of our population believes, then yes, we haven't made much progress have we.
================
The answer as to why Iraq and not Iran or NK is that the war was not about weapons. It was about a New American Century nut case theory devised by cowards who have no faith in the truth of American Principles. Everything has to be fudged to win.

Thankfully, I believe you are a singular idiot.
Golly, aschemize, I can't finish a thought you start because I don't think illogically. In the first place I see Iran as a highly evolved as sophisticated state. They invented chess, I believe. If not they know how to play it well. They are vastly more intellectually advanced than say Bush or his men. At their top is the cream of the cream. Naturally you wouldn't know this. Sophistication is apparent only to itself.

The proper answer to your question is that after thousands of years of war the US got a body, the UN, to establish the principle of international law. This was a spectacular achievement in the history of the world. Dumbo the Bush has nicely wrecked that with his insane little religious-ideological-neocon war.

 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: BOBDN
I read an article in the news a few days ago about the USA destroying tons of chem/bio weapons in Georgia or Alabama.

Shouldn't the rest of the world be concerned that Bush has WMD? Ditto for nukes.

If there was a nation more powerful than us right now I guess it would be OK for them to invade and conquer us given our new policy of pre-emption.

Before some of you start foaming at the mouth with rage let me say my point is our current policy makes it OK for the country with the biggest guns to force its will on others.

Doesn't seem we've made much progress since the dawn of "civilization."
If you are too dense to be able to tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, and you are representative of any serious segment of our population believes, then yes, we haven't made much progress have we.
================
The answer as to why Iraq and not Iran or NK is that the war was not about weapons. It was about a New American Century nut case theory devised by cowards who have no faith in the truth of American Principles. Everything has to be fudged to win.

Thankfully, I believe you are a singular idiot.
Golly, aschemize, I can't finish a thought you start because I don't think illogically. In the first place I see Iran as a highly evolved as sophisticated state. They invented chess, I believe. If not they know how to play it well. They are vastly more intellectually advanced than say Bush or his men. At their top is the cream of the cream. Naturally you wouldn't know this. Sophistication is apparent only to itself.

The proper answer to your question is that after thousands of years of war the US got a body, the UN, to establish the principle of international law. This was a spectacular achievement in the history of the world. Dumbo the Bush has nicely wrecked that with his insane little religious-ideological-neocon war.

Return to your bridge, or answer my question. Do you believe that Iran should obtain nuclear weapons to "counter" the US?

Your idea of sophistication matches theirs. Chanting "death to america" and burning whoever the US president is in effigy. Only thing is, they have the balls to do it in public, while you can only do it on the internet.
 
I still haven't seen a cogent response to the question posed: Why attack Iraq and not Iran? What is the administration's strategy w/ Iran exactly? At least w/ North Korea, you understand the administration is taking a wait-and-see approach with diplomacy. But Iran? I don't see a clear strategy. Are we trying to stir up unrest from within? If so, that doesn't seem to be doing much...
 
Back
Top