The IAEA says Iranian Nukes talks at dead end.

[Lemon law]

As someone who is trying to understand the questions about the Iranian nuclear ambitions, I have to wonder what the IAEA really expects from Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091126...5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNpYWVhY2hpZWZpcmE-

After all, Iran has already sworn on a stack if Koran's that their nuclear program is limited to the peace time generation of electrical power. A right any nation has.

What has everyone peeing their pants is that Iran may go on to develop nuclear weapons in addition to only the peace time use of nuclear energy for power generation.

And since the IAEA can't really say no to the peace time use of nuclear energy for power generation, the real question is what question do we need to ask to determine is Iran, at this point in time, also has ambitions to go on to develop nuclear weapons.

And at this point, I have to conclude the right questions are not being asked that would yield an answer.

Lets see what the IAEA cites as reasons.

1. Iran may have sufficient knowledge, once they have enough weapons grade Uranium, to develop a nuclear weapon. Which puts Iran in exactly the same class of every reasonably bright high school student on the planet. Duh, BFD, the hard part is
getting massive quantities of mainly U238 to a U235 enrichment level of about 94+%
when Iran is presently at the 3% U235 level now. With 3% enrichment levels being minimal levels to build nuclear reactors for power generation, but years away from 94%. And Iran has not really built the reactors yet.

2. Iran turned down the Russian deal to turn over all their Uranium its enriched to the 3% level to Russia just to get a tiny amount of 36% enriched Uranium to build one tiny breeder reactor for medical purposes. Which would also be legal under IAEA rules for peace time use of nuclear technology. Another well, DUH, what then happens to the main legal Iranian ambition to fuel the large number of nuclear reactors needed to generate nuclear power? Can we blame Iran for saying no, would we trust the Russians?

3. Iran concealed the building of a new nuclear facility. And that is dubious at best, because it only a violation of rules for new countries wanting to start peace time nuclear power, but legal under the set of rules Iran signed on to many years ago. The facility is not even built or operational yet, and given the Israeli threats to bomb any and all Iranian nuclear faculties, why should Iran disclose its location before the rules require them to do so?

4. I can only conclude the outgoing head of the IAEA is blowing smoke and pandering to Israeli and US hysteria, and shedding heat and no light on answering the question of Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions. And besides, even for Iran, that fork in the road question regarding developing nuclear weapons is years into the future. But still we must concede, under the UN charter, the peacetime use of nuclear power is a right of any nation, as such is not a threat to other nations, and its something Iran is totally committed to developing.

 

[Freshgeardude]

The world needs to learn the fact that evil still exists in this world.


I see you said

Iran is presently at the 3% U235 level now

but no proof. No one can say exactly how much they have without actually going to Iran. They have lied in the past and it wouldnt surprise me if they would do it again.


I personally think they are looking for weapons, but im biased towards israel. The fact that the world looks at them worried if they want weapons is what really bothers me. I dont understand why the world is acting so weak against a country like Iran. They are letting Iran feel like they are all powerful like Russia, China, the US, or EU. The world needs to collectively give Iran an ultimatum or suffer economic consequences. Unless they are so passionate to destroy Israel they will stop in their tracks and start listening to the world, because after that bull shit election im sure many people in Iran are ready for a civil war.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can get my arms around the two points freshgeardude makes,

1. Freshgeardude just does not trust Iran and is pro Israeli biased.---well OK, take your concerns to the IAEA, I am sure your gut opinion will be the final word everyone is waiting for. But wait, FGD has no proof either.

2. Regardless if the Mullahs survive or not in Iran or not, that is the one thing everyone in Iran is united on, namely developing a peace time nuclear program for electrical power generation. What Iran is divided on is the oppressive rule of the Mullahs, and if the Mullahs are swept aside, Iran would have an effective functioning democracy still dedicated to the same nuclear program.

In short, we are left with doubts and no proof either way. And Al- Bariday is just blowing more smoke. Or better put, how do we really tell if Iran has any nuclear weapons ambitions or not?

 

[soccerballtux]

3%? Lol? They can buy 20% enriched from us no questions asked.

They've got an estimated *8000 gas centrifuges.

They're definitely higher than 3%. Everyone knows this. This article is a joke.

*Last I heard. But nobody really knows.

 

[frostedflakes]

AFAIK, they've been relatively cooperative with IAEA inspectors, and the agency has no reason to suspect Iran is currently pursuing nuclear weapons. That doesn't stop the US and Israel from pressuring international bodies to impose additional sanctions on Iran, though. If we had a smoking gun that pointed to them pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT, then I'd be all for sanctions. Until then, though, leave them be.

 

[Zebo]

I hope they get nukes as a believer in right to bear arms.

 

[Freshgeardude]

I have no problem with Iran having a peaceful nuclear program as long as they follow every guideline to the t. they havent been and that is what worries me.

 

[Lemon law]

3%? Lol? They can buy 20% enriched from us no questions asked.

They've got an estimated *8000 gas centrifuges.

They're definitely higher than 3%. Everyone knows this. This article is a joke.

*Last I heard. But nobody really knows.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did you get the notion you can buy 20% U235 enriched Uranium no question asked.?

Ole GWB got everyone peeing their pants when he claimed Saddam was buying yellowcake Uranium from Niger, and yellowcake is simply pure unprocessed Uranium that is a fraction of 1% U235.

 

[SamurAchzar]

I hope they get nukes as a believer in right to bear arms.

A prime example of the human species survival instinct, no doubt. How about a complete deregulation of all nuclear weapons and allowing free trade in them? Surely it would make the world a better, safer place.

 

[soccerballtux]

Lemon:
Any country can, because LEU is harmless.

 

[frostedflakes]

Not really harmless, I think you can build a weapon with 20% U-235. It isn't going to be a very good one, but it can be done.

 

[soccerballtux]

Not really harmless, I think you can build a weapon with 20% U-235. It isn't going to be a very good one, but it can be done.

Lol, it's not even an option until you hit at least 80% purity. Need 90% unless you're willing to be the next North Korea laughing stock...

 

[LunarRay]

This seems to be simply the Cop don't want the Criminal to have a gun.
Everyone should have nuclear power and if they need it, nuclear weapons too. All a nuclear weapon is is a device that can terminate more folks quicker than conventional weapons... Why spend billions on weaponry and not feed folks when you can have a few nuclear ones and produce energy and feed folks and be secure in your own sovereign state... like Isreal for instance or North Korea.
We want controlling everything and our own people are hungry and sick... this equation don't solve to zero...

 

[Lemon law]

To start out with, U235 Based Nuclear weapons are now fairly rare. Most of the world's nuclear weapons use plutonium bred in nuclear reactors. And such breeder reactors take a much higher level of U235 than those designed for only electrical power generation.

Even one of two U235 bombs would keep all of Iran's gas centrifuges busy for years would no ability to make fuel for reactors.

 

[Lemon law]

For what its worth, the IAEA board voted against Iran, and with China and Russia joining in, its not good news for Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091127/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear

But I suspect Russia and China joining in may have more to do with I scratch your back and you scratch mine diplomacy than reason. And how strong the sanction Russia of China may support is another question.

But as Al-Baradai prepares to leave, it kinds kicks the can down to the next lucky head of the IAEA also.

 

[soccerballtux]

To start out with, U235 Based Nuclear weapons are now fairly rare. Most of the world's nuclear weapons use plutonium bred in nuclear reactors. And such breeder reactors take a much higher level of U235 than those designed for only electrical power generation.

Even one of two U235 bombs would keep all of Iran's gas centrifuges busy for years would no ability to make fuel for reactors.

The detonation mechanism for plutonium weapons is just a tad bit difficult to develop. Nobody is worried about them creating a plutonium based nuclear warhead.

Why else would all the journal publications be focusing on U235 production regarding Iran? Because it's what they're pursuing, of course!

The detonation mechanism for a mass of U235, however, is as simple as a 6th grade science project. Hence Iran's interest.

And they mean to use it, first and foremost on Israel:
http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114
http://former.president.ir/khatami/eng/cronicnews/1379/7910/791007/791007.htm (see under the bottom heading "Leader-Muslims")
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305

And then people wonder why we don't want them to have nuclear weapons. LOL.

Iran and their willingness to support AlQaeda is as much of a pest to China as they are to us. They don't like the Muslim extremists either, they get their fair share of trouble from them as well. Russia has a history dealing with "infidel killers" and thus I imagine is not too keen on an unstable state like Iran acquiring them, either.

So basically, Iran is crazy, the whole world knows it, and nobody wants them to have nuclear capabilities. It wasn't until Iran started making noise about their nuclear weapons program that the whole rest of the Middle East started talking about how they needed to have one, too. Why? Because Iran is a threat to them. Israel is not, they could care less about Israel.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

As someone who is trying to understand the questions about the Iranian nuclear ambitions, I have to wonder what the IAEA really expects from Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091126...5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNpYWVhY2hpZWZpcmE-

After all, Iran has already sworn on a stack if Koran's that their nuclear program is limited to the peace time generation of electrical power. A right any nation has.

What has everyone peeing their pants is that Iran may go on to develop nuclear weapons in addition to only the peace time use of nuclear energy for power generation.

And since the IAEA can't really say no to the peace time use of nuclear energy for power generation, the real question is what question do we need to ask to determine is Iran, at this point in time, also has ambitions to go on to develop nuclear weapons.

And at this point, I have to conclude the right questions are not being asked that would yield an answer.

Lets see what the IAEA cites as reasons.

1. Iran may have sufficient knowledge, once they have enough weapons grade Uranium, to develop a nuclear weapon. Which puts Iran in exactly the same class of every reasonably bright high school student on the planet. Duh, BFD, the hard part is
getting massive quantities of mainly U238 to a U235 enrichment level of about 94+%
when Iran is presently at the 3% U235 level now. With 3% enrichment levels being minimal levels to build nuclear reactors for power generation, but years away from 94%. And Iran has not really built the reactors yet.

2. Iran turned down the Russian deal to turn over all their Uranium its enriched to the 3% level to Russia just to get a tiny amount of 36% enriched Uranium to build one tiny breeder reactor for medical purposes. Which would also be legal under IAEA rules for peace time use of nuclear technology. Another well, DUH, what then happens to the main legal Iranian ambition to fuel the large number of nuclear reactors needed to generate nuclear power? Can we blame Iran for saying no, would we trust the Russians?

3. Iran concealed the building of a new nuclear facility. And that is dubious at best, because it only a violation of rules for new countries wanting to start peace time nuclear power, but legal under the set of rules Iran signed on to many years ago. The facility is not even built or operational yet, and given the Israeli threats to bomb any and all Iranian nuclear faculties, why should Iran disclose its location before the rules require them to do so?

4. I can only conclude the outgoing head of the IAEA is blowing smoke and pandering to Israeli and US hysteria, and shedding heat and no light on answering the question of Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions. And besides, even for Iran, that fork in the road question regarding developing nuclear weapons is years into the future. But still we must concede, under the UN charter, the peacetime use of nuclear power is a right of any nation, as such is not a threat to other nations, and its something Iran is totally committed to developing.

Shut the fuck up.

They can be idiots but only for so long, if they don't comply, they will burn.

There is no other choice.

 

[soccerballtux]

Shut the fuck up.

They can be idiots but only for so long, if they don't comply, they will burn.

There is no other choice.

I'm so thankful for the ability to ignore posters.

 

[Lemon law]

As JOS says onto me, "Shut the fuck up." And then threatens to burn me.

Get em clue JOS, this is a political forum based on logic and reason, or if you prefer, think of it as a debating society.

And in debate you rebut your opponent using reason and fact, and in short, hoping they will shut up does not get it and is no currency in ANY debate.

Nor JOS, have you any cause to claim you were right regarding Afghanistan, as the military strategy you advocated flopped totally as I told it would and why. You told me I was totally wrong then without any logical debate, called me a twat, told me to shut up, and what I predicted would happen if we did not alter strategy happened despite all your misplaced denial and lack of comprehension of people.

It does not give me any joy in being proved right because its a bad outcome for everyone, but at least I tried to advocate something that would not result in a bad outcome.

 

[Lemon law]

I think its time to address the soccerballtux contentions of. "The detonation mechanism for plutonium weapons is just a tad bit difficult to develop. Nobody is worried about them creating a plutonium based nuclear warhead.

Why else would all the journal publications be focusing on U235 production regarding Iran? Because it's what they're pursuing, of course!"

In terms of the latter contention, even if its maybe easier to develop a trigger mechanism for a U235 weapon, it does not suit the Israeli hysteria position that Iran has only nuclear weapons weapons ambitions.

I also find it hard to believe that Iran does not have the brains to develop a plutonium fueled nuclear weapons. It only took the USA a few years to work out the technology, and now that the whole wide world knows it feasible, many other nations have done it. Including Israel who is suspected of having 80+ plutonium based bombs.

Nor should we be especially alarmed if some Iranian scientists are combing the scientific literature. After all, you, me, and everyone and their brother in law knows how to use matches, knives, and guns for peace time and offensive capabilities. Yes its true, we can use our knowledge of matches and a gallon of gas to use the old Indian method of fire starting to burn our neighbors house down thereby committing arson.

But that still tells us nothing about Iranian intentions. And Iran is only the tip of the iceberg, as many other nations are applying to the IAEA to develop peace time nuclear power generation.

 

[Ozoned]

I think, now that As ElBaradei has been replaced with someone friendly towards the west, The IAEA will become a lot stronger.

 

[LunarRay]

A prime example of the human species survival instinct, no doubt. How about a complete deregulation of all nuclear weapons and allowing free trade in them? Surely it would make the world a better, safer place.

I guess MAD applies to only big players, folks who care about their population and important Earthly stuff. Folks who'd blow themselves up to visit with Allah while killing their enemy don't seem to fit that criteria.

Perhaps this is how it will all end? Everyone holds a nuclear arsenal and while in the defense of their sovereignty detonates a few or uses them in an aggressive but holy endeavor [holy from their perspective... a mandate of sorts]. That might then produce the catalyst for total regional destruction. Which not only overwhelms God but solves some issues... Not a very healthy prospect but it seems to be what folks in that area seek to realize.

 

[Lemon law]

I think, now that As ElBaradei has been replaced with someone friendly towards the west, The IAEA will become a lot stronger.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me of I am wrong, but to my knowledge, no replacement for El-Baradei has been named yet. I imagine there will be somewhat of a fight over the replacement between large states with nukes and the plethora of smaller states without, but time will tell in that regard.

Nor can we no questions asked buy the contention that the IAEA will become stronger, not only has El-Baradei been ineffective, any successor will have to deal with not only Iran but a large number of other nations with peace time nuclear energy applications already in. Which will put a great challenge on developing consistent standards, how can the IAEA demand give up its nuclear program while it lets Israel have its own nuclear program that has already has borne the fruit of nuclear weapons.

If the IAEA becomes just some servant of someones idea of political correctness, its bound to become ineffective and an anachronism.

Nor can we assume the kind of Iranian sanctions desired by Israel and the USA will be enforced by Russia, China, France, and other nations. As it is, Iran is now saying it will continue its nuclear program with or without the IAEA. Leaving the world with two basic options, sanctions or war. With neither option easy.

And if no effective sanctions result and no war, the IAEA becomes rather toothless.
And if Israeli elects themselves as enforcers of IAEA policy by bombing Iran, we can only foresee very grave consequences.

Which is why I asked the question in my opening post on this thread, what PROOF other than suspicions does the IAEA have that Iran INTENDS to develop nuclear weapons?

So far, no one has offered any rational reason that I could see. And if the IAEA is only operating using random throw darts at all wall methodology, I submit such a organization should be called useless. And because the IAEA have offered no credible reasons for their actions, why should Iran and a large number of other nations trust them or work with them?

As for El-Baradie, he can afford to act irresponsibly, because he will be gone from the IAEA, and its his successor who will have to deal with the problems he leaves.

But if the IAEA is just blowing smoke, why should not Iran just with draw from the nuclear proliferation treaty? At this point the likely outcome.

 

[Ozoned]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me of I am wrong, but to my knowledge, no replacement for El-Baradei has been named yet. I imagine there will be somewhat of a fight over the replacement between large states with nukes and the plethora of smaller states without, but time will tell in that regard.

Nor can we no questions asked buy the contention that the IAEA will become stronger, not only has El-Baradei been ineffective, any successor will have to deal with not only Iran but a large number of other nations with peace time nuclear energy applications already in. Which will put a great challenge on developing consistent standards, how can the IAEA demand give up its nuclear program while it lets Israel have its own nuclear program that has already has borne the fruit of nuclear weapons.

If the IAEA becomes just some servant of someones idea of political correctness, its bound to become ineffective and an anachronism.

Nor can we assume the kind of Iranian sanctions desired by Israel and the USA will be enforced by Russia, China, France, and other nations. As it is, Iran is now saying it will continue its nuclear program with or without the IAEA. Leaving the world with two basic options, sanctions or war. With neither option easy.

And if no effective sanctions result and no war, the IAEA becomes rather toothless.
And if Israeli elects themselves as enforcers of IAEA policy by bombing Iran, we can only foresee very grave consequences.

Which is why I asked the question in my opening post on this thread, what PROOF other than suspicions does the IAEA have that Iran INTENDS to develop nuclear weapons?

So far, no one has offered any rational reason that I could see. And if the IAEA is only operating using random throw darts at all wall methodology, I submit such a organization should be called useless. And because the IAEA have offered no credible reasons for their actions, why should Iran and a large number of other nations trust them or work with them?

As for El-Baradie, he can afford to act irresponsibly, because he will be gone from the IAEA, and its his successor who will have to deal with the problems he leaves.

But if the IAEA is just blowing smoke, why should not Iran just with draw from the nuclear proliferation treaty? At this point the likely outcome.

El Baradie last day was November 27th, the new guy that was elected in july, starts on Dec. 1st

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/dgselected.html

And one of Irans mouth pieces has indicated today that they will likely withdraw from the treaty.

The Iaea is the worlds Nuclear inspectorate. They inspect, they report. They don't make policy in the way that you suggest in your post.

Maybe instead of saying a lot stronger, I should have said more vocal.

 

[Lemon law]

Thank you Ozoned for posting the link to El-Baradie's successor.

Its somewhat absurd to say the IAEA does not make world policy, but now that Armano will soon be IAEA top dog and thus instrumental in making IAEA policy, one of his priorities may be in the diplomacy required in preventing Iran from with drawing from the non proliferation treaty. Failing preventing a Iranian withdrawal, that will make policy also.

Only time will tell and I suspect Armano will have to hit the ground running Monday.

Only time will tell.