Weapons grade Uranium?

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm a bit suprised this hasn't been posted, so I shall

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3338283

<snip>
The agency confirmed in the report that it had found highly enriched uranium in environmental samples taken at a nuclear facility at Natanz as reported by Reuters last month. The uranium was weapons grade, diplomats said.
</snip>

Should be interesting to see the UN's reaction and resolve in regards to this. I think the UN will botch this just as it has done in other situations - I hope I'm wrong though.

CkG

 

[alchemize]

Is there anyone who really questions that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb? Or can we just state that as fact?

 

[DealMonkey]

My gut feeling is that they are, however this report still has some holes in it.

CNN.com

But Iranian officials have told the agency those traces came from equipment imported from another country, he said.

He would not disclose what country allegedly provided the equipment -- which included centrifuges used to enrich uranium and machinery associated with them -- but said inspectors were following up on that assertion with officials from that country.

...

A western diplomat told CNN the report does not answer "the big question -- whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program." The diplomat said "about a half-dozen" questions remain unresolved, but the IAEA has "come a long way" Iran's work on then-secret nuclear facilities emerged last year.

The report indicates that IAEA inspectors will need to conduct further inspections of facilities connected to Iran's centrifuge program as well as gathering further environmental samples.

The diplomat said it will take time to check out Iran's claim that the highly enriched uranium came from contaminated equipment.

...

Gwozdecky said Iran has a "large and sophisticated" nuclear program, and he warned against "jumping to conclusions on the basis of partial knowledge."

"There are a number of scenarios which would explain why highly enriched uranium might be found in Iran," he said. "We need to examine every one of those scenarios to determine which is the most plausible."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
My gut feeling is that they are, however this report still has some holes in it.

CNN.com

But Iranian officials have told the agency those traces came from equipment imported from another country, he said.

He would not disclose what country allegedly provided the equipment -- which included centrifuges used to enrich uranium and machinery associated with them -- but said inspectors were following up on that assertion with officials from that country.

...

A western diplomat told CNN the report does not answer "the big question -- whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program." The diplomat said "about a half-dozen" questions remain unresolved, but the IAEA has "come a long way" Iran's work on then-secret nuclear facilities emerged last year.

The report indicates that IAEA inspectors will need to conduct further inspections of facilities connected to Iran's centrifuge program as well as gathering further environmental samples.

The diplomat said it will take time to check out Iran's claim that the highly enriched uranium came from contaminated equipment.

...

Gwozdecky said Iran has a "large and sophisticated" nuclear program, and he warned against "jumping to conclusions on the basis of partial knowledge."

"There are a number of scenarios which would explain why highly enriched uranium might be found in Iran," he said. "We need to examine every one of those scenarios to determine which is the most plausible."

The report is from the IAEA but yes there is obviously some "reason" for it being there. Iran claims "contaminated equipment" - but that begs the question - "where from" to which they don't reply. So the question of how the UN handles the situation should be interesting to see develop. Will they actually do something and investigate these "contamination" claims? I hope so. To let this situation go unchecked could damage any "viability" the UN has left in my opinion.

Should be interesting.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

Another take might be that if you do have nuclear weapons, you are a sitting duck. As a known weapons state, they would be targeted with strategic nuclear weapons. Without weapons, they are not.

Also, Iran is prohibited from developing nuclear weapons by the non-proliferation treaty they have signed. They can withdraw from it (after advance notice) and then develop weapons, but not the other way around. Also Russia, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, cannot export nuclear technology to a country which is not abiding by the treaty. Therefore, Iran would have to give up all support on the reactor now under construction.

Where is the equipment from? I'd like to know also. The Russians say they haven't supplied it (officially). I would look hard at Pakistan and perhaps North Korea.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

Another take might be that if you do have nuclear weapons, you are a sitting duck. As a known weapons state, they would be targeted with strategic nuclear weapons. Without weapons, they are not.

Also, Iran is prohibited from developing nuclear weapons by the non-proliferation treaty they have signed. They can withdraw from it (after advance notice) and then develop weapons, but not the other way around. Also Russia, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, cannot export nuclear technology to a country which is not abiding by the treaty. Therefore, Iran would have to give up all support on the reactor now under construction.

Where is the equipment from? I'd like to know also. The Russians say they haven't supplied it (officially). I would look hard at Pakistan and perhaps North Korea.

Is Bush going to fire strategic nukes at Iran knowing that Iran can wipe out Israel in retaliation? The risk of not having nukes is much higher than having them.
Russians supply the reactors for "peaceful" use. Very legit. But would they be heartbroken if Iran developed nukes using those reactors? Probably not.
Look at what happened in Iraq. Russian interests were supplanted by US interests. So anything that will help Iran preserve independence is good for Russia, not to mention the cash Iran is paying for the reactors. Very much needed cash for Russian industries.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

 

[povertystruck]

Israel will act if they are close to a nuke, not if they have a nuke.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

Another take might be that if you do have nuclear weapons, you are a sitting duck. As a known weapons state, they would be targeted with strategic nuclear weapons. Without weapons, they are not.

Also, Iran is prohibited from developing nuclear weapons by the non-proliferation treaty they have signed. They can withdraw from it (after advance notice) and then develop weapons, but not the other way around. Also Russia, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, cannot export nuclear technology to a country which is not abiding by the treaty. Therefore, Iran would have to give up all support on the reactor now under construction.

Where is the equipment from? I'd like to know also. The Russians say they haven't supplied it (officially). I would look hard at Pakistan and perhaps North Korea.

Is Bush going to fire strategic nukes at Iran knowing that Iran can wipe out Israel in retaliation? The risk of not having nukes is much higher than having them.
Russians supply the reactors for "peaceful" use. Very legit. But would they be heartbroken if Iran developed nukes using those reactors? Probably not.
Look at what happened in Iraq. Russian interests were supplanted by US interests. So anything that will help Iran preserve independence is good for Russia, not to mention the cash Iran is paying for the reactors. Very much needed cash for Russian industries.

What makes you think that Iran could retaliate from any nuclear strike? They are a long way from being the USSR. Last time I checked, they don't have a NORAD equivalent. 3-4 nuclear tipped cruise missles, no retaliation. Just radiation They are raising the stakes in a very serious game.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

OK, lets say tomorrow Iran tests a nuke. How are we going to "act"?
There is another precedent that you are forgetting. Iran, Iraq, and NK are on "axis of evil." Which one gets attacked first? The one that doesn't have an active nuclear program.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

Another take might be that if you do have nuclear weapons, you are a sitting duck. As a known weapons state, they would be targeted with strategic nuclear weapons. Without weapons, they are not.

Also, Iran is prohibited from developing nuclear weapons by the non-proliferation treaty they have signed. They can withdraw from it (after advance notice) and then develop weapons, but not the other way around. Also Russia, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, cannot export nuclear technology to a country which is not abiding by the treaty. Therefore, Iran would have to give up all support on the reactor now under construction.

Where is the equipment from? I'd like to know also. The Russians say they haven't supplied it (officially). I would look hard at Pakistan and perhaps North Korea.

Is Bush going to fire strategic nukes at Iran knowing that Iran can wipe out Israel in retaliation? The risk of not having nukes is much higher than having them.
Russians supply the reactors for "peaceful" use. Very legit. But would they be heartbroken if Iran developed nukes using those reactors? Probably not.
Look at what happened in Iraq. Russian interests were supplanted by US interests. So anything that will help Iran preserve independence is good for Russia, not to mention the cash Iran is paying for the reactors. Very much needed cash for Russian industries.

What makes you think that Iran could retaliate from any nuclear strike? They are a long way from being the USSR. Last time I checked, they don't have a NORAD equivalent. 3-4 nuclear tipped cruise missles, no retaliation. Just radiation They are raising the stakes in a very serious game.

Maybe. But are you willing to take a chance on that? Is Israel?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

OK, lets say tomorrow Iran tests a nuke. How are we going to "act"?
There is another precedent that you are forgetting. Iran, Iraq, and NK are on "axis of evil." Which one gets attacked first? The one that doesn't have an active nuclear program.

If they tested a nuke, likely we would conduct airstrikes on their nuclear facilities. Raze them to the ground.

Iraq was the softest target, and the easiest to justify politically. Iran would be #2, and a nuke would politically justify it.

NK is a different story, since they hold Seoul hostage. If NK tested a nuke, I'm not sure what would happen. That scares me more than Iran testing a nuke.

 

[povertystruck]

Its all for Israel. Nk could never be attacked without the casuallity list of 9/11 looking like just a bad day. Iraq, what a joke they only offered a threat to Israel(prove that I am wrong). Iran is the only threat that can be solved with a military action, but hope there is another solution.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

OK, lets say tomorrow Iran tests a nuke. How are we going to "act"?
There is another precedent that you are forgetting. Iran, Iraq, and NK are on "axis of evil." Which one gets attacked first? The one that doesn't have an active nuclear program.

If they tested a nuke, likely we would conduct airstrikes on their nuclear facilities. Raze them to the ground.

Iraq was the softest target, and the easiest to justify politically. Iran would be #2, and a nuke would politically justify it.

NK is a different story, since they hold Seoul hostage. If NK tested a nuke, I'm not sure what would happen. That scares me more than Iran testing a nuke.

Do you really think Iran would be stupid enough to test a nuke before they have several others ready to go and pointed at Israel.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

OK, lets say tomorrow Iran tests a nuke. How are we going to "act"?
There is another precedent that you are forgetting. Iran, Iraq, and NK are on "axis of evil." Which one gets attacked first? The one that doesn't have an active nuclear program.

If they tested a nuke, likely we would conduct airstrikes on their nuclear facilities. Raze them to the ground.

Iraq was the softest target, and the easiest to justify politically. Iran would be #2, and a nuke would politically justify it.

NK is a different story, since they hold Seoul hostage. If NK tested a nuke, I'm not sure what would happen. That scares me more than Iran testing a nuke.

Do you really think Iran would be stupid enough to test a nuke before they have several others ready to go and pointed at Israel.

Yes.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

OK, lets say tomorrow Iran tests a nuke. How are we going to "act"?
There is another precedent that you are forgetting. Iran, Iraq, and NK are on "axis of evil." Which one gets attacked first? The one that doesn't have an active nuclear program.

If they tested a nuke, likely we would conduct airstrikes on their nuclear facilities. Raze them to the ground.

Iraq was the softest target, and the easiest to justify politically. Iran would be #2, and a nuke would politically justify it.

NK is a different story, since they hold Seoul hostage. If NK tested a nuke, I'm not sure what would happen. That scares me more than Iran testing a nuke.

Do you really think Iran would be stupid enough to test a nuke before they have several others ready to go and pointed at Israel.

Yes.

Well, then why worry?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

OK, lets say tomorrow Iran tests a nuke. How are we going to "act"?
There is another precedent that you are forgetting. Iran, Iraq, and NK are on "axis of evil." Which one gets attacked first? The one that doesn't have an active nuclear program.

If they tested a nuke, likely we would conduct airstrikes on their nuclear facilities. Raze them to the ground.

Iraq was the softest target, and the easiest to justify politically. Iran would be #2, and a nuke would politically justify it.

NK is a different story, since they hold Seoul hostage. If NK tested a nuke, I'm not sure what would happen. That scares me more than Iran testing a nuke.

Do you really think Iran would be stupid enough to test a nuke before they have several others ready to go and pointed at Israel.

Yes.

Well, then why worry?

A bit off-topic how big is like the actuall warhead of a nuclear bomb? Like a car? How big is the missile and the warhead?
Anyway, I wonder why Iran sees the need for Weapons Grade Uranium. Just to push around Isreali?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

OK, lets say tomorrow Iran tests a nuke. How are we going to "act"?
There is another precedent that you are forgetting. Iran, Iraq, and NK are on "axis of evil." Which one gets attacked first? The one that doesn't have an active nuclear program.

If they tested a nuke, likely we would conduct airstrikes on their nuclear facilities. Raze them to the ground.

Iraq was the softest target, and the easiest to justify politically. Iran would be #2, and a nuke would politically justify it.

NK is a different story, since they hold Seoul hostage. If NK tested a nuke, I'm not sure what would happen. That scares me more than Iran testing a nuke.

Do you really think Iran would be stupid enough to test a nuke before they have several others ready to go and pointed at Israel.

Yes.

Well, then why worry?

A bit off-topic how big is like the actuall warhead of a nuclear bomb? Like a car? How big is the missile and the warhead?
Anyway, I wonder why Iran sees the need for Weapons Grade Uranium. Just to push around Isreali?

There are suitcase bombs out there, but I am guessing the one that goes on top of an Iranian missile would be the size of a washing machine.
Mostly not to push others around, but to prevent themselves from being pushed around.

 

[Particle Man]

Sorry but the science is getting wacky now.

Suitcase bombs are urban legends, unless you have some type of government intelligence stating otherwise. The physics of a thermonuclear weapon (U235) requires a given distance/mass ratio or else it will go critical (Chernobyl). The best that Iran could do would be like a fatman bomb, which is a behemoth. The little boy was using Plutonium instead and different design, which again is huge. Trying to launch one of these will be very difficult without detection. Now, if technology from the former Soviet Union was implemented, they would have to make ultra caution to not contaminate anything in the process (many, many times better than any clean room in a fab processor plant). In addition, they would have to use special explosives to accelerate the U235 to reach critical mass at a finite point under extreme pressure to give the mushroom explosion. Remember that this is under the best conditions possible to build one of these warheads. If contamination or miscalculation in critical mass timing does occur, then it could become more like a dirty bomb without the mushroom cloud. Just because you have weapons grade materials does not necessarily mean that a thermonuclear bomb can be made from it automatically. It can take a lot of weapons grade material to make a single bomb with extreme caution.

If Iran wanted to threaten with a dirty bomb, then it still will cause tensions with neighboring countries. Testing a nuke is not a small task and it requires lots of $$$ and good scientists to do so.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Particle Man

If Iran wanted to threaten with a dirty bomb, then it still will cause tensions with neighboring countries. Testing a nuke is not a small task and it requires lots of $$$ and good scientists to do so.

Both of which Iran has. Iran's military expenditures are 3 times that of Pakistan, which already has the nukes and missles needed to deliver them (IIRC).

 

[Particle Man]

I agree that something needs to be done, now, before it is too late.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Iran is working on the nuke. Period, end of story. If they had nuclear plant and weren't working on one, they would be failing the defense of their own people. These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck.
Iran is not under UN sanctions, so they aren't prohibited from developing these weapons. Maybe by NNPT, but they can withdraw from that on short notice.
Where the equipment is from? Russia. Next question.

I'll agree with everything except the "These days if you don't have a nuke, you are a sitting duck." statement. By building a nuke, you are raising the stakes considerably. All politics aside, do you think that Isreal will let any hostile neighbor develop the ability to launch nuclear weapons at it?

You have to raise the stakes to make the chickenhawks chicken out. Right now with the neocon commanded forces right next door with plans for dominating the region, Iranians have bigger things to worry about than Israel.

Your inflammatory politically biased comments aside, if they have a nuke, we will act. If we don't, Israel will. Remember the nuclear power plant in Iraq? There is precedent...

May I ask how you or Israle is going to act? Like this: "Please Iran could you be so kind and stop developing your weapons? please please with sugar on top..."

Or are you implying that you or Israel would start a war again? Btw, I dont think Israel could afford a war if they ever want peace in their country.