Jump to content

Iran has backup nuke facillity


Rob W
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is known about the second enrichment plant?

 

President Obama said the plant was near the city of Qom. He said its size and scope was "inconsistent" with a peaceful nuclear programme, probably meaning that it was too small to enrich enough uranium for fuel but large enough to enrich sufficient for a bomb. It is estimated to have space for 3000 centrifuges and is said to be in mountainous terrain. It is thought to have been under Western surveillance for several years.

 

The president demanded that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) be allowed access. Beyond that, he repeated the demand that Iran comply with Security Council resolutions while also reiterating that if Iran was cooperative, it would get assistance from the US and the West.

 

Did Iran violate IAEA rules in not declaring this plant earlier?

 

President Ahmadinejad said it was being built in conformity with IAEA rules and that Iran had given much more notice of it than required.

 

However, there is a dispute between Iran and the IAEA over the notice that has to be given before a nuclear facility is made operational. Iran says that, under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, it need only declare a facility 180 days before nuclear material is inserted into it and that in this case it had given about a year's notice.

 

However, the IAEA says that in 2003, after the main enrichment plant at Natanz was discovered, Iran agreed on what's called a Subsidiary Arrangement to its safeguards agreement, under which it would inform the IAEA of any new facility at the preliminary design stage. Iran later repudiated this arrangement, saying that it had not been ratified by its parliament but the IAEA says that no such unilateral repudiation is allowed.

 

So Western governments argue that Iran did violate the rules.

 

 

How soon could Iran make a nuclear bomb?

 

Experts believe that Iran could enrich enough uranium for a bomb within a few months. However, it has apparently not mastered the technology of making a nuclear warhead. In theory Iran could leave the NPT with three months notice and it would then be free to do what it wanted. However, by doing that it would signal its intentions and leave itself open to attack. If it tried to divert material for a bomb in secret and was found out, it would lay itself open to the same risk.

 

Mohamed ElBaradei has said that the threat of Iran developing a bomb has been "hyped."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think there's some double standards, for sure. However, you seem to be saying that Iran is doing nothing wrong, or at least they're the lesser of two evils.

 

Actually Chris is trying quite desperately not to "say" that.

 

Which is, of course, why he'll never answer the question: Do you think the regime in the USA is worse than the regime in Iran? :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or indeed; Do you think the regime in the USA is worse than the regime in Guinea? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8280603.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is known about the second enrichment plant?

 

President Obama said the plant was near the city of Qom. He said its size and scope was "inconsistent" with a peaceful nuclear programme, probably meaning that it was too small to enrich enough uranium for fuel but large enough to enrich sufficient for a bomb. It is estimated to have space for 3000 centrifuges and is said to be in mountainous terrain. It is thought to have been under Western surveillance for several years.

 

The president demanded that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) be allowed access. Beyond that, he repeated the demand that Iran comply with Security Council resolutions while also reiterating that if Iran was cooperative, it would get assistance from the US and the West.

 

Did Iran violate IAEA rules in not declaring this plant earlier?

 

President Ahmadinejad said it was being built in conformity with IAEA rules and that Iran had given much more notice of it than required.

 

However, there is a dispute between Iran and the IAEA over the notice that has to be given before a nuclear facility is made operational. Iran says that, under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, it need only declare a facility 180 days before nuclear material is inserted into it and that in this case it had given about a year's notice.

 

However, the IAEA says that in 2003, after the main enrichment plant at Natanz was discovered, Iran agreed on what's called a Subsidiary Arrangement to its safeguards agreement, under which it would inform the IAEA of any new facility at the preliminary design stage. Iran later repudiated this arrangement, saying that it had not been ratified by its parliament but the IAEA says that no such unilateral repudiation is allowed.

 

So Western governments argue that Iran did violate the rules.

 

 

How soon could Iran make a nuclear bomb?

 

Experts believe that Iran could enrich enough uranium for a bomb within a few months. However, it has apparently not mastered the technology of making a nuclear warhead. In theory Iran could leave the NPT with three months notice and it would then be free to do what it wanted. However, by doing that it would signal its intentions and leave itself open to attack. If it tried to divert material for a bomb in secret and was found out, it would lay itself open to the same risk.

 

Mohamed ElBaradei has said that the threat of Iran developing a bomb has been "hyped."

 

If the US president says it it MUST be true. They don't scaremonger do they. :lol:

 

You keep bringing up the IAEA amendment. I'll say it again, this is not something Iran has recognised (as it does not apply to any other nations). Whether they did initially and changed their mind I don't know, but as I said earlier, either way it's a small violation in comparison to Israels outright refusal to co-operate in any way shape or form with UN resolutions.

 

Which "experts" are you quoting in the third part. The US existing National Intelligence Estimate hasn't been amended to reflect this "belief".

Edited by Happy Face
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1979 is the reported date Israel began testing.

 

The same rules don't apply for Israel only because of the US backing they get in the UN as one of their biggest customers.

 

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession.

 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons.

 

I'm sure Iran would love to be able to bring some parity, but there's no suggestion they've attempted to yet.

 

 

So are you saying that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons then?

 

 

 

 

Er..... Chris the Natural Resources Defence Council is an eco-pressure group :lol: and the Federation of American Scientists estimates them having 80 (although quite what they base that on is unclear).

 

But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise?

 

Since you seem to be gripping this bone with all your might, can you tell me why their estimate should be dismissed? As a non-profit, non-partisan, international group they've had several studies printed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you choose to dismiss it fine, do you not believe the Federation of American Scientists either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1979 is the reported date Israel began testing.

 

The same rules don't apply for Israel only because of the US backing they get in the UN as one of their biggest customers.

 

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession.

 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons.

 

I'm sure Iran would love to be able to bring some parity, but there's no suggestion they've attempted to yet.

 

 

So are you saying that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons then?

 

 

 

 

Er..... Chris the Natural Resources Defence Council is an eco-pressure group :o and the Federation of American Scientists estimates them having 80 (although quite what they base that on is unclear).

 

But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise?

 

Since you seem to be gripping this bone with all your might, can you tell me why their estimate should be dismissed? As a non-profit, non-partisan, international group they've had several studies printed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you choose to dismiss it fine, do you not believe the Federation of American Scientists either?

 

 

Because it is :lol:, why else?

 

Ok lets not believe intelligence agencies, they certainly can be wrong. :panic:

 

 

 

But then why believe an eco-pressure group that has no more inside information on nuclear proliferation than The Brownies have about Israel having "200+" nuclear weapons? :rolleyes::scratchchin:

 

And as Fop said even the FAS (which suggest they may have ~80) shows nothing at all to back up that statement, other than the statement itself. :scratchhead:

 

 

 

It's your own fault Chris, check your sources before you post em, if you don't want to be ridiculed for them. :scratchhead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1979 is the reported date Israel began testing.

 

The same rules don't apply for Israel only because of the US backing they get in the UN as one of their biggest customers.

 

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession.

 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons.

 

I'm sure Iran would love to be able to bring some parity, but there's no suggestion they've attempted to yet.

 

 

So are you saying that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons then?

 

 

Er..... Chris the Natural Resources Defence Council is an eco-pressure group :o and the Federation of American Scientists estimates them having 80 (although quite what they base that on is unclear).

 

But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise?

 

Since you seem to be gripping this bone with all your might, can you tell me why their estimate should be dismissed? As a non-profit, non-partisan, international group they've had several studies printed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you choose to dismiss it fine, do you not believe the Federation of American Scientists either?

 

 

Because it is :lol:, why else?

 

Ok lets not believe intelligence agencies, they certainly can be wrong. :panic:

 

 

 

But then why believe an eco-pressure group that has no more inside information on nuclear proliferation than The Brownies have about Israel having "200+" nuclear weapons? :rolleyes::scratchchin:

 

And as Fop said even the FAS (which suggest they may have ~80) shows nothing at all to back up that statement, other than the statement itself. :scratchhead:

 

 

 

It's your own fault Chris, check your sources before you post em, if you don't want to be ridiculed for them. :scratchhead:

 

If you place as much stock in the Brownies as you do the NRDC (which has been going for 40 years and published several studies on worldwide nuclear stockpiles), that's your choice.

 

If you believe the Brownies talk as much sense as FAS (65 years researching Nuclear programs and endorsed by 84 Nobel laureates) then you're free to get your info from wherever you wish.

 

You don't have to believe either of them. Or Mohamed ElBaradei (president of the IAEA, the man claiming Iran have broke the rules) who says Israel have them and undermine the whole thing.

 

If you think all it's all bollocks, it only serves to shine a light on your blinkered view. Not that I think for a second you actually believe Israel don't have nukes. It just serves your preposterous stance that Israel don't need to sign up to the NPT because they haven't been proven to have any. That they should continue their own policy of "nuclear ambiguity" while insisting on Iranian transparency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fuckin hell

 

Do we still have wankers trying to justify a bunch of extremist fuckers hellbent on destructing Israel, trying to justify them having nukes ?

 

I know there are a few do gooder freaks on here, but words fail me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fuckin hell

 

Do we still have wankers trying to justify a bunch of extremist fuckers hellbent on destructing Israel, trying to justify them having nukes ?

 

I know there are a few do gooder freaks on here, but words fail me

Maybe if you stopped consistently calling them things like that, they'd actually bother to listen to what you're saying. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1979 is the reported date Israel began testing.

 

The same rules don't apply for Israel only because of the US backing they get in the UN as one of their biggest customers.

 

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession.

 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons.

 

I'm sure Iran would love to be able to bring some parity, but there's no suggestion they've attempted to yet.

 

 

So are you saying that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons then?

 

 

Er..... Chris the Natural Resources Defence Council is an eco-pressure group :icon_lol: and the Federation of American Scientists estimates them having 80 (although quite what they base that on is unclear).

 

But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise?

 

Since you seem to be gripping this bone with all your might, can you tell me why their estimate should be dismissed? As a non-profit, non-partisan, international group they've had several studies printed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you choose to dismiss it fine, do you not believe the Federation of American Scientists either?

 

 

Because it is :D, why else?

 

Ok lets not believe intelligence agencies, they certainly can be wrong. :aye:

 

 

 

But then why believe an eco-pressure group that has no more inside information on nuclear proliferation than The Brownies have about Israel having "200+" nuclear weapons? :scratchhead::icon_lol:

 

And as Fop said even the FAS (which suggest they may have ~80) shows nothing at all to back up that statement, other than the statement itself. :scratchchin:

 

 

 

It's your own fault Chris, check your sources before you post em, if you don't want to be ridiculed for them. :aye:

 

If you place as much stock in the Brownies as you do the NRDC (which has been going for 40 years and published several studies on worldwide nuclear stockpiles), that's your choice.

 

If you believe the Brownies talk as much sense as FAS (65 years researching Nuclear programs and endorsed by 84 Nobel laureates) then you're free to get your info from wherever you wish.

 

You don't have to believe either of them. Or Mohamed ElBaradei (president of the IAEA, the man claiming Iran have broke the rules) who says Israel have them and undermine the whole thing.

 

If you think all it's all bollocks, it only serves to shine a light on your blinkered view. Not that I think for a second you actually believe Israel don't have nukes. It just serves your preposterous stance that Israel don't need to sign up to the NPT because they haven't been proven to have any. That they should continue their own policy of "nuclear ambiguity" while insisting on Iranian transparency.

 

 

NRDC is an eco-pressure group...... are they really going to have a pro-nuclear stance? (what do they think about Iran getting nuclear technology by the way? :rolleyes:).

 

But where are they getting their evidence from? The Girl Guides have been going for 100 years, does that mean thier information on nuclear proliferation is even more accurate than the NRDC? :lol:

 

 

The FAS is probably more realistic (and reliable - stating ~80 to the NRDCs 200+!!!! :panic:), but again their estimate seems to be base upon.... nothing too. :scratchhead:

 

 

You may as well believe some nutty pressure group that claims Iran have another 3 enrichment facilities being built, it's all just as much baseless guess work by people with agendas. :aye:

 

 

 

 

Mind you Chris, Fop was surprised to see you on the side of the Brownies for once. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fuckin hell

 

Do we still have wankers trying to justify a bunch of extremist fuckers hellbent on destructing Israel, trying to justify them having nukes ?

 

I know there are a few do gooder freaks on here, but words fail me

Maybe if you stopped consistently calling them things like that, they'd actually bother to listen to what you're saying. :D

 

 

Have you ever been to toontastic before? :icon_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fuckin hell

 

Do we still have wankers trying to justify a bunch of extremist fuckers hellbent on destructing Israel, trying to justify them having nukes ?

 

I know there are a few do gooder freaks on here, but words fail me

Maybe if you stopped consistently calling them things like that, they'd actually bother to listen to what you're saying. :D

 

 

Have you ever been to toontastic before? :icon_lol:

Is this where I get to answer a question with another question rather than addressing it directly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may as well believe some nutty pressure group that claims Iran have another 3 enrichment facilities being built, it's all just as much baseless guess work by people with agendas. :D

 

No it's not.

 

My post has links to the reports and sources which includes the US Defence Intelligence Agency who place Israels nuclear arsenal at 60-80.

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

 

Earlier I quoted the US National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran pose no nuclear threat and don't look likely to.

 

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

 

How does that fit the US agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1979 is the reported date Israel began testing.

 

The same rules don't apply for Israel only because of the US backing they get in the UN as one of their biggest customers.

 

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession.

 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons.

 

I'm sure Iran would love to be able to bring some parity, but there's no suggestion they've attempted to yet.

 

 

So are you saying that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons then?

 

 

Er..... Chris the Natural Resources Defence Council is an eco-pressure group :icon_lol: and the Federation of American Scientists estimates them having 80 (although quite what they base that on is unclear).

 

But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise?

 

Since you seem to be gripping this bone with all your might, can you tell me why their estimate should be dismissed? As a non-profit, non-partisan, international group they've had several studies printed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you choose to dismiss it fine, do you not believe the Federation of American Scientists either?

 

 

Because it is :D, why else?

 

Ok lets not believe intelligence agencies, they certainly can be wrong. :aye:

 

 

 

But then why believe an eco-pressure group that has no more inside information on nuclear proliferation than The Brownies have about Israel having "200+" nuclear weapons? :scratchhead::icon_lol:

 

And as Fop said even the FAS (which suggest they may have ~80) shows nothing at all to back up that statement, other than the statement itself. :scratchchin:

 

 

 

It's your own fault Chris, check your sources before you post em, if you don't want to be ridiculed for them. :aye:

 

If you place as much stock in the Brownies as you do the NRDC (which has been going for 40 years and published several studies on worldwide nuclear stockpiles), that's your choice.

 

If you believe the Brownies talk as much sense as FAS (65 years researching Nuclear programs and endorsed by 84 Nobel laureates) then you're free to get your info from wherever you wish.

 

You don't have to believe either of them. Or Mohamed ElBaradei (president of the IAEA, the man claiming Iran have broke the rules) who says Israel have them and undermine the whole thing.

 

If you think all it's all bollocks, it only serves to shine a light on your blinkered view. Not that I think for a second you actually believe Israel don't have nukes. It just serves your preposterous stance that Israel don't need to sign up to the NPT because they haven't been proven to have any. That they should continue their own policy of "nuclear ambiguity" while insisting on Iranian transparency.

 

 

NRDC is an eco-pressure group...... are they really going to have a pro-nuclear stance? (what do they think about Iran getting nuclear technology by the way? :rolleyes:).

 

But where are they getting their evidence from? The Girl Guides have been going for 100 years, does that mean thier information on nuclear proliferation is even more accurate than the NRDC? :lol:

 

 

The FAS is probably more realistic (and reliable - stating ~80 to the NRDCs 200+!!!! :panic:), but again their estimate seems to be base upon.... nothing too. :scratchhead:

 

 

You may as well believe some nutty pressure group that claims Iran have another 3 enrichment facilities being built, it's all just as much baseless guess work by people with agendas. :aye:

 

 

 

 

Mind you Chris, Fop was surprised to see you on the side of the Brownies for once. :o

 

I don't ever read about the South African nuclear arsenal....strange. Just shows there is more talk of a country with no nuclear capability (maybe enough to make one bomb if in a panic) than there is of a country that has had nukes for 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong but haven't Sarf Afreeka gotten rid of their nuclear weapons?

 

News to me.... :D Last thing I read on the matter was that the outgoing whites were worried that the blacks couldn't be trusted with them. Don't think they got rid of them. Could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong but haven't Sarf Afreeka gotten rid of their nuclear weapons?

 

News to me.... :D Last thing I read on the matter was that the outgoing whites were worried that the blacks couldn't be trusted with them. Don't think they got rid of them. Could be wrong.

Just checked and they did. Probably explains why you don't read about them much :icon_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.