PDA

View Full Version : IAEA: Evidence Iran is developing a nuclear warhead for thir missiles


Smurf-Herder
02-24-2010, 11:30 AM
U.N. finds evidence Iran is developing N-warhead

By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The United Nations' nuclear inspectors declared for the first time Thursday that they had extensive evidence of "past or current undisclosed activities" by Iran's military to develop a nuclear warhead, an unusually strongly worded conclusion that seems certain to accelerate Iran's confrontation with the U.S. and other Western countries.

The report, the first under the new director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, also concluded that Iran's weapons-related activity continued "beyond 2004," contradicting a U.S. intelligence assessment published about two years ago that said work on a bomb was suspended at the end of 2003.

The report confirms that Iran has enriched small quantities of uranium to 20 percent but makes no assessment of how close it might be to producing a nuclear weapon, which Iran denies it is seeking to do.

The U.N. report cited new evidence that appeared to paint a picture of a concerted drive in Iran toward a weapons capability. The agency described an escalating series of steps by Iran: the enrichment to 20 percent, its acknowledgment of a secret enrichment plant in Qum, its efforts to metalize uranium and its rejection of a deal to enrich its uranium outside the country.

The report also reiterated evidence that Iran appeared to have tested ways of detonating weapons and to have worked to design warheads small enough to fit atop a missile.

One senior Obama administration official said he thought the actions described in the report "almost suggest the Iranian military is inviting a confrontation."

Some in the Obama administration suspect that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or its leading mullahs are betting that an escalation of the nuclear confrontation might distract attention from the street protests that have rocked the government.

The report buttressed that view by indicating that Iran had moved most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium into an aboveground storage facility at Natanz, where it is vulnerable to military attack.

"It's odd, and there is no technical explanation for it," the senior administration official said at a briefing. "There must be some other explanation."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011123394_iranuke19.html

John Galt
02-24-2010, 11:46 AM
More fluffing of feathers.

'Past or current undisclosed activities'?

Let's just say that when the cowboy was in office, Iran had every desire to fuck with the idiot.

I don't believe that they feel that need anymore.

I believe, as the piece suggests, that this is meant to distract from that uncomfortable uprising that still exists in that oppressive nation.

Those who choose to keep their people in line, are embarrassed when they start to lose control of the masses.

The 20% enrichment is no secret.

Smurf-Herder
02-24-2010, 12:18 PM
More fluffing of feathers.

'Past or current undisclosed activities'?

Let's just say that when the cowboy was in office, Iran had every desire to fuck with the idiot.

I don't believe that they feel that need anymore.

I believe, as the piece suggests, that this is meant to distract from that uncomfortable uprising that still exists in that oppressive nation.

Those who choose to keep their people in line, are embarrassed when they start to lose control of the masses.

The 20% enrichment is no secret.


The main issue is the IAEA believing they have evidence of Iran developing a functional warhead, not just the enrichment.

John Galt
02-24-2010, 12:40 PM
The main issue is the IAEA believing they have evidence of Iran developing a functional warhead, not just the enrichment.
I understand, but they are pretty vague as to the timeline.

Boogie man
02-24-2010, 01:05 PM
I understand, but they are pretty vague as to the timeline.

What should the civilized world do if Iran launches a nuke at Israel first?

John Galt
02-24-2010, 03:14 PM
What should the civilized world do if Iran launches a nuke at Israel first?
Well, we can sit here and pound our chests, and speculate. Or we can focus on real problems.


I'm quite sure that Iran knows that they'll no longer exist, if they were stupid enough to launch an attack on Israel. Honestly, this reminds me of the cold war era, when we constantly heard idle conjecture regarding the Soviet Union.

I'd say that Israel/Iran have a very similar stalemate.


And...we would be very stupid to escalate any verbal challenges, and drive the price of oil back up through the roof.

Those speculators are waiting for just that opportunity.

Smurf-Herder
02-24-2010, 06:38 PM
I understand, but they are pretty vague as to the timeline.

Well, to begin with, this whole thing started with IAEA demands and iran not coming through on explaining initial evidence of a second secret program all the way back to 2003; which started the whole sanctions thing, after the demand to stop enrichment because of cridibility gap. Then, Intelligence Agencies in other countries disagreed with our 2007 NIE. France and Germany believed iran never stopped working on the actual payload device for a missile warhead - the part that makes it all come together.

Now we're rethinking the 2007 NIE, especially in light of recent Iranian defectors and the intel they have. Iran has technical information on how to form hemispherical Uranium cores, they've been testing neutron detonators (which have only one use), they have computer simulations on refining uniform implosions, they've been modifying their nosecone designs; and it was recently made public that they've had the designs for a small advanced Pakistani nuclear warhead for a while now.

Moby
02-24-2010, 11:16 PM
Let's just say that when the cowboy was in office, Iran had every desire to fuck with the idiot.

I don't believe that they feel that need anymore.

Iran has been difficult for much longer than just that past administration.

1. I don't think they will stop until they have nukes. Pakistan is full of terrorist camps but we didn't invade them because the threat of nukes made a war very dangerous. Instead we gave Musharraf tons of money and his presidency seemed to match time lines with the last administration.

Now that US troops gave into terrorist demands and moved our troops out of Saudi Arabia and into the countries that border Iran, they will keep going until they get nukes.

2. If they have nukes they will not toss them at Israel any more than the evil Russian empire nuked the USA.

3. We will not be successful at stopping them but if we could find away without nuking them ourselves (or having Israel act as our proxy) it would be great.

Bill Cosby
02-24-2010, 11:21 PM
That sounds like your classic arms race..........

slowhand
02-24-2010, 11:32 PM
There is a big difference between having them, and using them

The worst case senario is a nuke getting in the hands of al Quaeda..That would be something to worry about

If Iran ever shot a nuke at us, even the sand over there would be like molten glass when it was over..and I think they know that..Ahmadinijad is more intimidation than threat

Bill Cosby
02-24-2010, 11:38 PM
There is a big difference between having them, and using them

The worst case senario is a nuke getting in the hands of al Quaeda..That would be something to worry about

If Iran ever shot a nuke at us, even the sand over there would be like molten glass when it was over..and I think they know that..Ahmadinijad is more intimidation than threat

LOL.........

alqueda or any doomZday cult....... Some of these ppl believe Armageddon is ripe & ready to roll, even if they gotta do it themselves.....

Smurf-Herder
02-25-2010, 11:04 AM
There is a big difference between having them, and using them

The worst case senario is a nuke getting in the hands of al Quaeda..That would be something to worry about

If Iran ever shot a nuke at us, even the sand over there would be like molten glass when it was over..and I think they know that..Ahmadinijad is more intimidation than threat


IMO, they're meant for nuclear blackmail of Europe, to keep the West out of a war with Israel.

They NEED Israel to attack first, for everything to fall into place.

IMO, all the nuclear facility targets are very expensive decoys. All the advanced work goes on underground IRGC missile bases that are off-limits to the IAEA (access was part of the original IAEA demands). Where they have the advanced IR3 carbon fiber centrifuges. They've also been building underground missile silos; and underground complexes.