Top-Secret US Replica of Iran Nuclear Sites Key To Weapons Deal 94
Lasrick writes Paul Richter at the LA Times has a very cool article describing replicas of Iran's nuclear facilities that the U.S. operates in order to study what Iran's technical capabilities are. "Using centrifuges acquired when Libya abandoned its nuclear program in 2003, as well as American-built equipment, the government has spent millions of dollars over more than a decade to build replicas of the enrichment facilities that are the pride of Iran's nuclear program. Since negotiations with Iran began in earnest, U.S. nuclear technicians have spent long hours tinkering with the machines to test different restrictions and see how much they would limit Iran's ability to convert uranium into bomb fuel."
Tit for tat (Score:3)
Iran has been doing this for years [cnn.com].
At least our copies work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nation of stalkers (Score:1)
This is getting way beyond creepy.
Re: (Score:2)
Dirty business of governments that you are too squeamish to be bothered with
Re: (Score:1)
Re:what's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you would. Me too, probably.
But what I wouldn't do is go somewhere to blow up random civilians. Even if it was effective. And I certainly wouldn't pretend that God wanted me to do it.
And let's be clear, Iran sponsors terrorism that has nothing to do with protecting itself, and has done so for years. They seem like a nice eccentric country to people who fail to realize that the whole "Revolutionary" in "Revolutionary Guard" is not just for Iran. The whole Iranian Revolution was fully intended to be a theocratic Shiite uprising across the region and beyond.
Revolutionary Iran is *expansionistic*, it has merely been checked in its ambitions. Don't be confused between them being stopped and them being an innocent regime that just wants to be left alone. Iran with nukes is more war, not less. And if there is going to be a war, I want the US to win it, because in the end, we'll at least try to do the right thing, and failing that, we'll leave.
Re: (Score:2)
But what I wouldn't do is go somewhere to blow up random civilians.
And that is why I think (historically) the democracy hasn't yet matured. Or probably even doesn't make any sense.
The big question about democracy is: who is responsible? those who were voted in the office? or those who voted them in?
The current "balance" is that nobody is responsible for anything. On the scale of the world, that is volatile and simply unsustainable.
And I certainly wouldn't pretend that God wanted me to do it.
"God" or "freedom" - there is really no difference between these imaginary entities. They are secondary anyway.
First people kill. Only the
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, except that the whole "but Israel is just as bad" is a cop out. Israel has its issues, no argument there, but Iran didn't go a good 50+ years with hostile countries around them trying to drive them into the sea.
Iran has no reason to sponsor terrorism that makes any sense other than wanting to push their own agenda. There are no security issues that it solves for them. All it has done is piss countries off that might have otherwise let things lie.
And if you still believe Israel is a problem, then ho
Re: (Score:3)
Are we discussing the behaviour of governments, or you personally? Because you start out by saying you'd never do something that the USA routinely does (drone strikes) and does in ways that no other country does. So if this is meant to be some kind of pissing match between the USA or Iran then Iran wins, as would basically any other country.
Re: (Score:2)
America did not invade Iraq for oil. The reason Saddam wasn't selling oil was because the US embargoed him. Why would we attack a country for the oil we refuse to buy from them, rebuild their fields, then start buying the oil from them? This argument makes no sense, there are far easier ways to get oil than spending as much money as we did on a war (which uses shitloads of oil that we shipped in) to "get the oil from Iraq".
Re: (Score:2)
America did not invade Iraq for oil. The reason Saddam wasn't selling oil was because the US embargoed him. Why would we attack a country for the oil we refuse to buy from them, rebuild their fields, then start buying the oil from them? This argument makes no sense, there are far easier ways to get oil than spending as much money as we did on a war (which uses shitloads of oil that we shipped in) to "get the oil from Iraq".
The reason Sadam was embargoed, as the story goes, is that he did the one thing that is forbidden, namely convert his oil fund to Euros. Iraq was selling oil for Euros by 2002. This severely threatens the petro dollar, which in turn threatens the whole US economy and the dollar as the world reserve currency. It's noteworthy that when Iraq came back on the oil market, the dollar was restored. They didn't sell one drop of oil for Euros.
Now, I don't really have a dog in the race, but it's a compelling theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Revolutionary Iran is *expansionistic*, it has merely been checked in its ambitions.
So who did they invade in a war of aggression? *crickets chirping*.
Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq. In the current war against ISIS they were INVITED in by the governments of the actual countries.
Sure they fund international terrorism but so do a lot of other countries. Some of which are US allies. Heck the US itself has funded terrorists.
Re:what's the point (Score:5, Informative)
Israel is a tiny country surrounded by countries that have an avowed intention of destroying it. Comparing it to Iran, or almost any other nation on earth, is absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit - check up on current relations between Israel and the surrounding countries, both Egypt and Jordan are on good relations with Israel. The "surrounded by countries who want to destroy Israel" is a load of propaganda bullshit. Sure, some countries have issues with Israel, its creation and its actions, but that's nowhere near the same as your statement.
Re: (Score:3)
The "creation of Israel" by the United Nations? That creation? Israel is one of the few legitimately created countries on the face of the earth.
Re: (Score:1)
Israel is a tiny country surrounded by countries that have an avowed intention of destroying it. Comparing it to Iran, or almost any other nation on earth, is absurd.
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
If we the US were invaded, _I_ would be making roadside bombs, shooting invading troops, doing whatever I could to free my home and I am sure that I would be called a "terrorist" back in the invading country's media.
No, no, no. You likely wouldn't if you don't even have the testicular fortitude to post under your actual handle.
The Patriot Act tested Americans' willingness to fight for our rights and we failed.
You could fight, but its a lot easier to just sit back with a drink, watch episodes of "24," and bitch on /. The government knows that and ensures that you have reliable access to liquor, electricity, and the internet while restricting your ability to obtain useful guns, ammo, body armor, and explosives.
Many of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got a chance of shooting down 1 bomb coming at you. Not so much when there are 1000.
One bomb can take out a city. 1000 bombs can take out a country. USA dropped two bombs on Japan in WWII
Re: (Score:3)
The point of this exercise is to keep them from getting enough enriched uranium for one bomb
Most of their enrichment now is below 5%, wit attempts to get up to 20%
Weapons grade is over 85%
I don't get it. (Score:1)
Is the US is shutting down all it's nuclear weapons programmes, or is this just the normal hypocrisy at work? Are you going to police China too? Russia? India? Pakistan? Just the intelligence costs alone from constant 'keyhole' overwatch, developing malware, etc must be astronomical.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It is called the Non Proliferation Treaty, and the idea is to not allow additional countries to develop nuclear weapons beyond the countries that had developed them before the treaty was finalized in 1996
http://www.un.org/disarmament/... [un.org]
The central idea being that the existing countries had made it through the cold war without nuking each other and had developed control system mature enough to avoid an accident, while many of the banned countries did not have nukes yet and demonstrated aggressive behavior t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the link:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/... [un.org]
Article II ...not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
What it does not infringe is the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes
Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research,
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to police China too? Russia? India? Pakistan?
You forgot Israel.
India, Pakistan and Israel are non-signatories of the NPT. Fine. If India and Pakistan want to point missiles at each other, that's their business. But if Israel won't sign and then they get their panties in a bunch over someone else getting the bomb, the most I think we owe them is STFU. Getting them to sign is the least I think we should expect in exchange for our political support.
Should be no problem? (Score:2)
Given that the USA managed it with 40ies technology, I would say that Iran should have no problem with 2003 technology. Maybe they can't build a bomb that powerful, but even the weakest nuke is powerful enough IMHO (as long as it's not a "dirty bomb").
Re: (Score:3)
A couple of things:
1) Little Boy would probably qualify as a "dirty bomb" by today's standards, since it fissioned just a small fraction of its uranium (~1.5%).
2) Little Boy was so dirt-simple that even North Korea should be able to manage one if they want
Re: (Score:3)
1) Little Boy would probably qualify as a "dirty bomb" by today's standards, since it fissioned just a small fraction of its uranium
That's not what a dirty bomb is. A dirty bomb does not have a nuclear reaction. A dirty bomb isn't a weapon of mass destruction, it's a fear-based weapon for area denial.
Re: Should be no problem? (Score:2)
They're not trying to get the bomb (if you can believe their media). They're trying to power their country without relying on foreign oil or foreign tech since historically, they have been hard hit economically by the instability of the region. The bomb may be secondary but nuclear power is still the cheapest power available (if you ignore the NIMBY and regulation problems western nations face)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the number of centrifuges they are running is far in excess of the number needed for fission power. This means they want the bomb, not civilian nuclear power. The fuel for their reactor is offered by the US and Russia through a treaty, instead they would rather make their own "fuel" so they can build bombs. They have large amounts of natural Uranium that can be enriched in other countries practically for free, and instead choose to enrich it themselves. This is not the actions of som
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Should be no problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
With nuclear weapons critical mass is critical mass, you really can't cheat physics by using lower uranium concentrations or less mass
Refining uranium is a numbers game, and during ww2 the US was expending vast resources and numerous experimental approaches towards getting weapons grade material. Much more resources than a smaller country like Iran could afford. They also generated a significant amount of plutonium in addition to the uranium
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The US was enriching uranium on WW2 with calutrons (which required shitloads of electricity to run) while the Iranians use centrifugues (which require a comparatively insignificant amount of electricity to run).
Re: (Score:1)
A dirty bomb is easy, in fact you dont even need it to explode, TNT can do that for you. Put some nasty high radiation waste in a suitcase with about 6 sticks of dynamite. BOOM no real damage except for spreading a lot of nasty crap for a few miles all over a city.
You dont have to worry about them making a bomb that can take out NYC, you have to worry about them making something that has enough radiation to cause a large chunk of the population to start having their skin melt off.
And even then it is n
Too much money$$$ (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, to cut costs they outsourced it to India, which outsourced it to Elbonia, which then outsourced it to Iran.
If Iran even wants the bomb (Score:3, Funny)
Regardless of who's answer you believe, they would never drop it on Israel, and the reason why is simple. It is against Islamic law for a Muslim to cause harm to kill another Muslim.
Israel is surrounded by water and muslim countries. If anyone dropped a nuke on them, the follout is guaranteed to be blown over at least one muslim country regardless of wind direction (there's the simple answer), if not five or more. This would cause harm to or kill thousands of muslims, and any muslim country who did that would face an uprising that would make the Arab Spring look like a game of hackeysack.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why Iran never went to war with Iraq.
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Iran never went to war with Iraq because Iraq invaded Iran. Iran was actually fighting a defensive war.
But other than that, you are right. Actually believing a Muslim would not cause harm to other Muslims is laughably naive.
Re: (Score:1)
The Arab whatever group was helpful to inform us here in Sweden that Saudi Arabia indeed respected human rights and what not because they was ruled by Sharia which is oh so friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, they are 100% peaceful with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a missing sarcasm tag there?
Re: (Score:2)
There was a power struggle over the control of Islam after Mohammed died, it really hasn't worked itself out since then
Re: (Score:1)
No, ISIS is foremost the result of one blunder after another of non-middle eastern powers and their allies'.
Re: (Score:2)
The Shiites believe Mohammed's son should have been Calif after Mohammed died (which was Mohammed's wish). They allow "Idols" to be made (statues, paintings, etc) and are actually pretty peaceful.
The Sunnis believe that Mohammed's followers should have been Calif after Mohammed died. This comes from them getting together and working it out while Mohammed was dying. They are essentially disposers to the throne of Islam. This group feels you should make no "Idols" (pictures, statues and the like) of any o
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they're bombing ISIS.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the very high likelihood of a nuclear counterstrike would play some deterrent role here also?
Glow in the dark... (Score:3)
Regardless of who's answer you believe, they would never drop it on Israel, and the reason why is simple. It is against Islamic law for a Muslim to cause harm to kill another Muslim.
Israel is surrounded by water and muslim countries. If anyone dropped a nuke on them, the follout is guaranteed to be blown over at least one muslim country regardless of wind direction (there's the simple answer), if not five or more. This would cause harm to or kill thousands of muslims, and any muslim country who did that would face an uprising that would make the Arab Spring look like a game of hackeysack.
The amount of radiation depends on the size of the blast and the type of warhead used. The bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced residual radiation, but it didn't last very long. Many of the radionuclides had brief half-lives that in some cases were measured in minutes. The bomb sites were highly radioactive for a few hours after the detonations, but the residual radiation decreased rapidly. Also, and contrary to popular belief, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations did not cause genetic mut
Re: (Score:1)
Muslims of a different sect are not considered real Muslims.
Or worse, they are considered apostate (i.e., a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.), which is punishable by death.
Which is why Shiites have no problem killing Sunni Muslims and vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Pu240 is incredibly unstable and can start fission reactions spontaneously
Pu238 is used in thermal batteries on space missions. The US stopped producing it in the late 80's, so we have been running out since then
Re: (Score:2)
P240, P241. Whatever it takes.
TOP SECRET (Score:1)
I love reading about TOP SECRET things on public websites.
Re: (Score:1)
It's all political theater, leaders learned that people are more compliant when they believe that some bad guy is going to rain death and fire down on them if they do not keep their leaders in power
You end up with Kennedy/Kruschev or more recently Kahmeni/Netanyahu keeping each other in power by appearing to be in immediate threat to each other
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
To make Uranium for a reactor requires around 1/100 or so the number of centrifuges they have that could be used for weapons production.
Analysis has slowed in the US (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
then just run UnStuxnet
Re: (Score:3)
They need refuge from the deluge of centrifuge subterfuge.
Hang on a minute (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or are all the supercomputers too busy sifting through everyone's phone calls and internet posts?
That was a rhetorical question, right?
But we already knew this. (Score:2)
hypocrits (Score:2)
Instead of telling Iran not to persue a nuclear program of any kind, they should first look at themselves. It's telling Iran not to create nuclear weapons otherwise there will be hell to pay, but they keep on making nuclear weapons themselves, so who is the agressor here.... And in history the only country ever using nuclear weapons is the US... So who are they to tell others not to pursue nuclear weapons (or energy)..
Not that I would like to have a country like Iran to have nuclear weapons, but if Isreal h
Re: (Score:2)
What weapons is the US producing? As far as I have heard we are disassembling the old ICBMs as fast as we can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be great if Russia upheld their portion of the exact same treaty, but I guess you missed where they signed it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
US secret plans? (Score:1)