• 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."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Iran uses its homemade rods in nuclear reactors

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

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,097
18,864
136
That's how all these negotiations go. You give up your WMD program and we'll give you free nuclear power plants. No one ever takes the offer though because they all want nuclear bombs because they think it'll preclude a Western invasion.
And they are right.
 

slayernine

Senior member
Jul 23, 2007
896
0
71
slayernine.com
Honestly, I have no problem with Iran having its own fuel cycle provided that it is monitored for NPT compliance. As long as we can verify/track the fuel it uses, then there is no threat. Unfortunately, we cannot currently do this.
I highly doubt the crazy dictator of Iran has anything nice planned when it comes to nuclear anything. There is no doubt in my mind that he is pursuing nuclear weaponry.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,097
18,864
136
I highly doubt the crazy dictator of Iran has anything nice planned when it comes to nuclear anything. There is no doubt in my mind that he is pursuing nuclear weaponry.
As I so frequently ask on here, why do you believe the dictator in charge of Iran is 'crazy'? Also, what exactly do you think Iran will do with its nuclear weapons?
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,256
554
126
As I so frequently ask on here, why do you believe the dictator in charge of Iran is 'crazy'? Also, what exactly do you think Iran will do with its nuclear weapons?
One possible scenario would be that they might 'accidentally' lose one or two them which will be 'found' by some islamic radicals and then a mushroom cloud will appear.

Plausible deniability.

But then again, I watched every season of '24'...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,097
18,864
136
One possible scenario would be that they might 'accidentally' lose one or two them which will be 'found' by some islamic radicals and then a mushroom cloud will appear.

Plausible deniability.

But then again, I watched every season of '24'...
I sincerely, sincerely doubt that would happen. There is no way that the US would view a bomb of Iranian origins detonated by a terrorist group as any different than the Iranians launching it themselves.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,151
8,453
136
As I so frequently ask on here, why do you believe the dictator in charge of Iran is 'crazy'? Also, what exactly do you think Iran will do with its nuclear weapons?
Basically nothing, then again their quest for nuclear arms doesn't make much sense unless they are or are going to participate in activities which would make such an enormously expensive project strategically beneficial.

The larger issue IMO is that a nuclear Iran would probably touch off a middle east nuclear arms race, which most definitely adds a new dimension of trouble to the region. Nobody over there wants Iran to have the bomb and if Iran gets it they are all going to be after it too.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,151
8,453
136
One possible scenario would be that they might 'accidentally' lose one or two them which will be 'found' by some islamic radicals and then a mushroom cloud will appear.

Plausible deniability.

But then again, I watched every season of '24'...
Not even the Soviets were ever crazy enough to think that would actually work.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
I sincerely, sincerely doubt that would happen. There is no way that the US would view a bomb of Iranian origins detonated by a terrorist group as any different than the Iranians launching it themselves.
Does it have to be detonated.

The threat by a terrorist group having one in any city can be used as blackmail.

A group makes a declaration in London that they have a bomb and want all Muslims imprisoned in the UK to be released.

Is the bomb real or imaginary given that a terror sponsoring organization has stated that they have made one (and/or) potentially tested it.

If Pakistan had a turnover and they stated that a weapon became unaccounted for then a group that operated out of Kashmir stated that they had the bomb in New Delhi, what would be the result.

Similar scenario.


Only it has not happened is because Pakistan has kept a close leash on its toys - possibly away from the ISI.

We do know that Iran has delivered increasing advanced weaponry to the proxies that it supports. Where does Iran draw the line, if it will?:confused:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,097
18,864
136
Does it have to be detonated.

The threat by a terrorist group having one in any city can be used as blackmail.

A group makes a declaration in London that they have a bomb and want all Muslims imprisoned in the UK to be released.

Is the bomb real or imaginary given that a terror sponsoring organization has stated that they have made one (and/or) potentially tested it.

If Pakistan had a turnover and they stated that a weapon became unaccounted for then a group that operated out of Kashmir stated that they had the bomb in New Delhi, what would be the result.

Similar scenario.


Only it has not happened is because Pakistan has kept a close leash on its toys - possibly away from the ISI.

We do know that Iran has delivered increasing advanced weaponry to the proxies that it supports. Where does Iran draw the line, if it will?:confused:
Iran with absolute certainty draws the line before nuclear weapons. Its primary foreign policy goal is regime survival, and the threat or the detonation of an Iranian weapon no matter how it comes about will mean the end of that regime.

Iran would never give nuclear weapons to an outside group, it would be suicide.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
Iran with absolute certainty draws the line before nuclear weapons. Its primary foreign policy goal is regime survival, and the threat or the detonation of an Iranian weapon no matter how it comes about will mean the end of that regime.

Iran would never give nuclear weapons to an outside group, it would be suicide.
The whole purpose of have a nuclear weapon is the threat of detonation.

So why can not the threat be used elsewhere? It is a threat of leverage, not a threat of action.

But can the receiver/victim take the chance? that is my point!
There may still be a chance of retaliation; conventional or nuclear; but at what cost. For many government,when weighed against the alternative, giving into to the threat is safer than calling the bluff.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,236
3,473
136
Man I remember when I was a kid, I use to love the smell of em fresh out of the oven.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,151
8,453
136
The whole purpose of have a nuclear weapon is the threat of detonation.

So why can not the threat be used elsewhere? It is a threat of leverage, not a threat of action.

But can the receiver/victim take the chance? that is my point!
There may still be a chance of retaliation; conventional or nuclear; but at what cost. For many government,when weighed against the alternative, giving into to the threat is safer than calling the bluff.
States are responsible for the custody of nuclear weapons. Any state that either through intent or incompetence allows such weapons to fall into the hands of a 3rd party they claim is beyond their control would be treated no differently than if the threat/attack was issued directly by said state. The ruling parties and armies of not entirely stable nations should well understand the implications if nukes got loose during a revolution and surely take steps to make sure they don't go missing.

This is the major impetus for nations to either keep extremely secure control of their weapon or not develop them in the first place. Failure of another nuclear armed country to respond in kind to a nuclear attack/threat would undermine the very principle of deterrence which keeps wars from inevitably escalating into nuclear exchanges.

The US would not likely capitulate to the demands of a "3rd party actor" because of the disastrous implications of doing so (opening up to many other threats).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,097
18,864
136
The whole purpose of have a nuclear weapon is the threat of detonation.

So why can not the threat be used elsewhere? It is a threat of leverage, not a threat of action.

But can the receiver/victim take the chance? that is my point!
There may still be a chance of retaliation; conventional or nuclear; but at what cost. For many government,when weighed against the alternative, giving into to the threat is safer than calling the bluff.
The threat of detonation is always implicit, but only in the case of a state facing national annihilation. If you take notice, nuclear armed states use the threat of nuclear attack extraordinarily rarely, precisely because of the risk of response.

Iran will only use a nuclear weapon as leverage to prevent attacks on it. It has no leverage outside of this, because its threats will not be viewed as credible. It will also not give nuclear weapons to any outside armed group, as that would be national suicide.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
States are responsible for the custody of nuclear weapons. Any state that either through intent or incompetence allows such weapons to fall into the hands of a 3rd party they claim is beyond their control would be treated no differently than if the threat/attack was issued directly by said state. The ruling parties and armies of not entirely stable nations should well understand the implications if nukes got loose during a revolution and surely take steps to make sure they don't go missing.

This is the major impetus for nations to either keep extremely secure control of their weapon or not develop them in the first place. Failure of another nuclear armed country to respond in kind to a nuclear attack/threat would undermine the very principle of deterrence which keeps wars from inevitably escalating into nuclear exchanges.

The US would not likely capitulate to the demands of a "3rd party actor" because of the disastrous implications of doing so (opening up to many other threats).
Playing the devil's advocate here...
If a government is about to fall; then what is the impetus for controlling the weapons?

Removing them from the opponent's control provides the ability to utilize them as leverage
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
The threat of detonation is always implicit, but only in the case of a state facing national annihilation. If you take notice, nuclear armed states use the threat of nuclear attack extraordinarily rarely, precisely because of the risk of response.

Iran will only use a nuclear weapon as leverage to prevent attacks on it. It has no leverage outside of this, because its threats will not be viewed as credible. It will also not give nuclear weapons to any outside armed group, as that would be national suicide.
This I would hope to happen.

However, given the track record; waste may not be so "controlled"
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,117
902
126
interesting....I'd love to see some resources to back up this info (not being sarcastic, just interested)
If Iranians leaders are responsibles they should
devellope nuclear detterence as soon as possible
to spare their fellow citizens experimenting
the US willingness to perform war crimes...
http://consciouslifenews.com/iraq-depleted-uranium-contamination-linked-to-illness-deformities-death/114318/





http://www.iraqichristians.info/English/Arameans_Iraq_Persecutions_Killings_Ethnic_Cleansing_29_12_2010.htm
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
We also have to understand, the Iran, not a super wealthy nation has big bucks invested in a nuclear program. But if Iran can generate all its electrical energy needs using nuclear
reactors, the savings for Iran are immense. That and the fact they can sell electrical power to surrounding nations to increase the Iranian paybacks. And later down the road, Iran can sell Uranium enriched to the 3-10% U235 level to other surrounding nations who are interested in going nuclear too.

Why should Iran risk the goose that laid the golden egg by trying to compete with Israel who already has at least 140+ Nuclear bombs by most reliable estimates. After all, even with a crash nuclear weapons program, Iran could not even come even with Israel before 2030 or longer. And that parity could not be achieved without Iran going to all highly enriched breeder type reactors that generate no more peace time nuclear generated electricity than reactors that run or 1/3 to 1/4 of lower U235 enrichment
levels.

But still the Iranian investment in reactor technology may not pay off, as China in particular is ponying up the R&D dollars to make thorium powered reactors into a practical reality. With Thorium powered nuclear reactors have four main advantages.
Thorium is a far more abundant material and it can be raw without the bother of using centrifuges to enrich it into a fuel for reactors. Plus such thorium reactors are far safer and don't breed plutonium. But still the thorium advantages only look good on paper, its going to take more R&D to prove its practicality. And Iran, made their nuclear decisions based on the technology of 2002.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
It would be interesting to know exactly from where those picture samples came from?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
It would be interesting to know exactly from where those picture samples came from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with EK here, we can find equally deformed human babies in any nation of the planet, and many are simply naturally occurring human birth accidents of nature and not related to pollutants and drugs.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
And they are right.
As more nations arm themselves with nuclear weapons, I think it's important for us to show that nukes will not deter us from taking action against a rogue nation. People will die, yes, but that's what happens in wars.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
What about stuff like rainwater runoff?

What is to stop rainwater from bringing the contaminated dirt into streams, lakes and rivers?
It's assumed that that damage is done. That stuffs been getting rained on for 40 years. IIRC DoE & DoD are tentatively saying they'll do "something" by 2019.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
As Nebor says, "As more nations arm themselves with nuclear weapons, I think it's important for us to show that nukes will not deter us from taking action against a rogue nation."

As Nebor ignores two crucial questions, who is "us" and who is a "rouge nation"?

Lets see, the population of Iran is 85 million, the population of the USA is over 300 Million, the population of purely Jewish Israel is under 7 million, yet the judge and jury of such questions more turn on the thinking of a 6 billion people world.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,151
8,453
136
Playing the devil's advocate here...
If a government is about to fall; then what is the impetus for controlling the weapons?

Removing them from the opponent's control provides the ability to utilize them as leverage
Not getting everyone in the country killed in a retaliatory strike should they end up in the wrong hands.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
That's how all these negotiations go. You give up your WMD program and we'll give you free nuclear power plants.
No, that's really not how it goes. What is your source for this nonsense, or did you just dream it up on your own?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY