Why Is Iran Taking So Long to Develop Nuclear Weapons?

[Jobrag]

During the WWII the Manhatten Project developed nuclear weapons from scratch in about four years. With much of the basic research freely available and with far more advanced technology, why is it taking Iran (and for that matter Iraq under Saddam Hussien) so long to produce their own Nukes?

 

[russ_watters]

It also takes money...and also, if they are doing it they have a bigger secrecy problem than we did.

 

[tiny-tim]

During the WWII the Manhatten Project developed nuclear weapons from scratch in about four years …

the manhatten project developed an a-bomb (uranium, fission, bomb)

iran is trying to go straight to an h-bomb (hydrogen, fusion, bomb)

 

[Office_Shredder]

I don't think that's right tiny-tim, seeing how all the hullabulloo is about iran enriching uranium

 

[cepheid]

I don't think that's right tiny-tim, seeing how all the hullabulloo is about iran enriching uranium

I think you still need uranium fission for a fusion bomb. One process is used as a catalyst for the other, to give you extra bang. I can't remember which way around it is. Intuitively, it makes sense to me that you'd need a tremendous input of energy in the first place to get runaway fusion. So maybe the fission is the trigger.

 

[PAllen]

I think you still need uranium fission for a fusion bomb. One process is used as a catalyst for the other, to give you extra bang. I can't remember which way around it is. Intuitively, it makes sense to me that you'd need a tremendous input of energy in the first place to get runaway fusion. So maybe the fission is the trigger.

Yes, fission is the trigger for an H-bomb. Either one needs diversion of enriched uranium. I had always assumed the suspicion was Iran working on a fission bomb, but I never checked this out. It never occurred to me that they might try jump directly to an H-bomb, so I never looked into what direction the suspicions were pointing (A-bomb or H-bomb).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I wondered why more countries didn't have them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

I suppose many don't want the great responsibility.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

most european countries do not have/want nuclear weapons because they are part of NATO, and being part of NATO means you have thousands of American nukes, and then French and British nukes. Then there are the many poor countries of the world that do not have the capability of making nuclear weapons.

Then there are countries like Japan, I'm sure it's obvious why they would be averse to arming themselves with nukes, but they are also allies of the USA, who has plenty of nukes to spare.

countries like China, India, N. Korea, etc. are countries that want nukes because it makes them look tough. Who would attack them if they had nukes? It'd be crazy.

It's the same reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons, I believe. They want to appear tough, so that they can exert more influence in the area.

 

[cepheid]

Yes of course, the main reason for wanting a nuclear arsenal is as a deterrent against attack, and the assurance of security that is perceived to come along with it (although that's debatable). I don't think any world leader in his or her right mind would want an nuclear arsenal so that he or she could use it against enemies.

Then again, I could be wrong and naive. Furthermore, there is some question as to whether certain world leaders are really in their right minds. The recently deceased dictator of North Korea comes to mind.

 

[Hobin]

Then again, I could be wrong and naive. Furthermore, there is some question as to whether certain world leaders are really in their right minds. The recently deceased dictator of North Korea comes to mind.

I doubt he would've been so stupid to use a nuclear weapon. He appeared to me to be a person who enjoyed living, and I thought him sensible enough to see that using a nuke would only lead to his own destruction.

Unfortunately, one cannot count on all present and future leaders to have a sense of self-preservation.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes of course, the main reason for wanting a nuclear arsenal is as a deterrent against attack, and the assurance of security that is perceived to come along with it (although that's debatable). I don't think any world leader in his or her right mind would want an nuclear arsenal so that he or she could use it against enemies.

Then again, I could be wrong and naive. Furthermore, there is some question as to whether certain world leaders are really in their right minds. The recently deceased dictator of North Korea comes to mind.

I attended a lecture earlier today at the APS April conference and one of the speakers gave a short talk on his experience with North Korea. Apparently he was some sort of go-between with North Korea and various administrations since the 70s. He's an actual physicist I believe, not a diplomat.

At the end of his talk, he told us that he feels as if a nation like North Korea with a handful of nuclear weapons is of very little threat in regards to them actually using it. However, he believes that once a nation starts gathering many dozens of nuclear weapons, being able to use them starts becoming more of an option.

 

[Vanadium 50]

During the WWII the Manhatten Project developed nuclear weapons from scratch in about four years. With much of the basic research freely available and with far more advanced technology, why is it taking Iran (and for that matter Iraq under Saddam Hussien) so long to produce their own Nukes?

US GDP in 1942: $2T (today's dollars)
Iran GDP: $331B

 

[russ_watters]

Manhattan project cost: $26b (today).

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I think that's just a touch more than we spend on foreign aid each year...?

 

[skeptic2]

I think a dangerous scenario would be when two nuclear powers engage in a non-nuclear war. Would not the loser in such a war seriously consider using their nuclear weapons before surrendering? Given that once a country becomes nuclear it stays nuclear, and that the number of nuclear countries will continue to rise, isn't this scenario inevitable?

 

[Gokul43201]

I think a dangerous scenario would be when two nuclear powers engage in a non-nuclear war. Would not the loser in such a war seriously consider using their nuclear weapons before surrendering?

Here's a case to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

 

[skeptic2]

The reference, despite the title, refers to it as a conflict, skirmish or operation vijay. The sovereignty of neither nation was threatened.

When the sovereignty of a nation is being threatened, would they hesitate to use nuclear weapons or would the mere possession nuclear weapons be enough of a deterrent to prevent a war? If so, how will serious international disputes be settled between nuclear powers?

 

[Office_Shredder]

If so, how will serious international disputes be settled between nuclear powers?

You can't think of a single serious international dispute that was settled between nuclear powers?

There is a vast gulf between international dispute and war of annihilation

 

[skeptic2]

The fact that an international dispute was settled without nuclear weapons begs the issue. The issue is that as more and more nations develop nuclear weapons, won't the temptation to use nuclear weapons also increase? What would you do if you were head of a country that was being bombed into total destruction? Would you launch your nuclear weapons before surrendering?

Will MAD continue to be a deterrent when half the world's countries have nuclear weapons?

 

[Hobin]

The fact that an international dispute was settled without nuclear weapons begs the issue. The issue is that as more and more nations develop nuclear weapons, won't the temptation to use nuclear weapons also increase?

No, because the more nations have nukes, the more likely it is that one nation using them will result in MAD (or even TAD, where T = total).

What would you do if you were head of a country that was being bombed into total destruction? Would you launch your nuclear weapons before surrendering?

The solution is simple. Let's not bomb other countries. Especially not the ones that have nukes. Instead, we could try that underrated little thing called 'diplomacy' and 'tact'.

 

[Andre]

On the technical site, the most suitable fuel for A-weapons is Pu239 because of it's relative stability and low critical mass. Wow, there used to be a time when that information was pretty confidential. However, due to the stability the Pu bomb needs some complex hi-tech additions that once was confidential too.

On the political/practical side, I think that nukes are highly impracticable for legimate states, as they tend to violate all international agreements. And with the ever increasing globalisation, it's just so 1960. For instance, just about any civilian target of real interest (metropolean areas) almost certainly also contains many friends, you don't want to hit.

 

[ThomasT]

During the WWII the Manhatten Project developed nuclear weapons from scratch in about four years. With much of the basic research freely available and with far more advanced technology, why is it taking Iran (and for that matter Iraq under Saddam Hussien) so long to produce their own Nukes?

Is it certain that they don't already have some sort of nuclear weapons? I have no idea. Just asking.

 

[Bobbywhy]

The intense saber-rattling of the United States, Israel, and other allies against Iran over its nuclear program is reverberating around the world. The official line from the United States and the European Union is that Tehran must be punished for continuing its efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. The punishment: sanctions on Iran's oil exports, which are meant to isolate Iran and depress the value of its currency to such a point that the country crumbles.

But Iran continues to be defiant, claiming to seek only nuclear power generation capability. Iran’s supreme leader has said publicly that building an atomic bomb would be contrary to his religious convictions. Furthermore, Iran maintains it has the right to enrich uranium under the IAEA treaty. Israel and the United States have already admitted using hacking to disrupt nuclear energy facilities in Iran, conducting covert operations in Iran, deploying spy drones to Iran, imposing draconian sanctions and embargo against Iranian oil exports, banking and trade, deploying U.S. nuclear super carrier battle groups with destroyers and nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf, and threatening Iran with military attack.

One argument in favor of military attack against Iran’s nuclear sites claims a nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war, forcing Washington to think twice before acting in the region. Iran’s regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia, would likely decide to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, sparking an arms race.

In case of a military attack we can expect Iran to retaliate quickly against Israeli and American interests. Iran has ballistic missiles in its arsenal with conventional warheads that can reach Israel. Israel has the Arrow Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system, the Iron Dome, a mobile air defense system, and David's Sling, sometimes called Magic Wand to protect itself from Iranian missiles. Also, American Patriot anti-missile systems are placed strategically around Israel.

Americans may think they are safe from Iranian counter-attacks, but they are wrong. There are American Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force troops stationed in every direction of the compass around Iran. All are within easy striking range of Iranian weapons and armed forces, including proxies supported by Iran. As of now Iran is surrounded on every side by United States military forces. To see a map of where our US soldiers are (there are some errors…no troops in Iraq any longer and Kyrgyzstan has only a few) look here: http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-right.html
Iran’s arsenal already boasts missiles with a range of about 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers) that were specifically designed for Israel and U.S. targets in the Gulf, the Shahab-3 and the Sajjil. The Iranians have already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz, but if they did so it would harm their own exports as well. Additionally, Iran has coastal air defenses, shore-based long-range artillery, antiship cruise missiles, Kilo-class and midget submarines, remote control fast boats, and unmanned drones carrying bombs. Also, there are approximately 1,000 small attack boats equipped with machine guns, multiple-launch rockets, anti-ship missiles, and rapid mine-laying capabilities. Any military strike against Iran will surely result in large numbers of American casualties. All of them will likely become targets if anyone dares to attack Iran. Once Americans begin to die, the USA would be obligated to “defend” Americans and this would be used to justify full scale war against all of Iran.

There are powerful political, military, and industrial groups that manufacture and use armaments that prefer to avoid peaceful settlements of international disputes. They try to use every possible method to influence public opinion to be more receptive of their murderous goals. History has shown us that these groups typically rely on stupidly, greed, and fear to advance their agenda. But liberal democracies are based on the idea of “government of, by, and for the people”, and not powerful special interest groups. The change of policy to resolve disputes diplomatically can only happen by the combined efforts of individual citizens in that society.

In my opinion the international community, which includes American voters, should condemn the assassination of Iranian scientists, end all sanctions against Iran, end covert activities inside Iran, and end all war threats against Iran. I am confident that common sense and good conscience based on the ideals of brotherhood, cooperation, and trust will prevail. Otherwise peaceful coexistence with our neighbors will continue to be just a fantasy.

Bobbywhy

 

[Cinitiator]

Who gave the US government, NATO or any other organization the right to decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and which ones aren't?

 

[Andre]

That is not the question. There is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is signed and ratified by Iran.

But Iran does have the right to peacefully use nuclear technology and that should not be dismissed to easily.

 

[Cinitiator]

That is not the question. There is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is signed and ratified by Iran.

But Iran does have the right to peacefully use nuclear technology and that should not be dismissed to easily.

Iran has the right to withdraw from this treaty like North Korea did.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Iran has the right to withdraw from this treaty like North Korea did.

Which would have very obvious consequences.

 

[lisab]

Which would have very obvious consequences.

It sure would. The sanctions against Iran would get tighter -- even China and Russia would have to relent. Unlike North Koreans, the Iranian people are not brainwashed, and they have contact with the outside world through any number of means. There would be tremendous pressure on the Iranian government, from the Iranian people. Who knows how that would work out, though.

All this is IMO, of course.

 

[ThomasT]

Who gave the US government, NATO or any other organization the right to decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and which ones aren't?

Weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deploy them, which back up economic and any other sorts of sanctions that might be used to get some country to conform to a certain set of dictates ... by other countries.

Iran is a threat because it's an Islamic theocracy. I certainly would not want to live in a world where such a country had the means to launch nuclear attacks on other countries.

I'm guessing that Israel will launch air strikes against certain Iranian military and suspected nuclear targets in the foreseeable future. This seems likely to happen from what I've read. The Iranians can't be trusted to not pursue military nuclear capability. Their expressed goal is the extermination of Israel. So, what's going to happen is the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iran, involving at least 150k US military, probably more. Obama is just trying to put this off until after the November election. But it is going to happen, imho.

 

[Cinitiator]

Weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deploy them, which back up economic and any other sorts of sanctions that might be used to get some country to conform to a certain set of dictates ... by other countries.

Iran is a threat because it's an Islamic theocracy. I certainly would not want to live in a world where such a country had the means to launch nuclear attacks on other countries.

I'm guessing that Israel will launch air strikes against certain Iranian military and suspected nuclear targets in the foreseeable future. This seems likely to happen from what I've read. The Iranians can't be trusted to not pursue military nuclear capability. Their expressed goal is the extermination of Israel. So, what's going to happen is the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iran, involving at least 150k US military, probably more. Obama is just trying to put this off until after the November election. But it is going to happen, imho.

Chances are, Iran wouldn't use these weapons unless it's attacked. And if Israel attacks it (which is highly unlikely - it's just a scare tactic in my opinion), it would simply become a self-fulfilling prophecy if Iran would already achieve weapon-grade uranium by then.

There's no reason why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons as a self-defense mechanism. If the US has the right to own it, why not Iran? The US government has killed far more innocent people than Iran - even if we look at the last 10-12 years. And with the current Chinese and Russian government policies, I wouldn't say that these states would oppose Iran owning nuclear weapons.

 

[russ_watters]

"Chances are" is a good enough reason for me!

 

[skeptic2]

Who gave the US government, NATO or any other organization the right to decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and which ones aren't?

Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace speech in 1953 and later the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) offered to make the technology for nuclear power plants available to non-nuclear nations provided they sign the NPT, or in other words not to use the technology for military purposes. They also had to agree to certain safeguards. Iran was a signatory to the NPT.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
Parties to the NPT agree to accept technical safeguard measures applied by the IAEA. These require that operators of nuclear facilities maintain and declare detailed accounting records of all movements and transactions involving nuclear material. Over 550 facilities and several hundred other locations are subject to regular inspection, and their records and the nuclear material being audited. Inspections by the IAEA are complemented by other measures such as surveillance cameras and instrumentation.

The inspections act as an alert system providing a warning of the possible diversion of nuclear material from peaceful activities. The system relies on;

* Material Accountancy – tracking all inward and outward transfers and the flow of materials in any nuclear facility. This includes sampling and analysis of nuclear material, on-site inspections, and review and verification of operating records.
* Physical Security – restricting access to nuclear materials at the site.
* Containment and Surveillance – use of seals, automatic cameras and other instruments to detect unreported movement or tampering with nuclear materials, as well as spot checks on-site.

 

[skeptic2]

No, because the more nations have nukes, the more likely it is that one nation using them will result in MAD (or even TAD, where T = total).

The solution is simple. Let's not bomb other countries. Especially not the ones that have nukes. Instead, we could try that underrated little thing called 'diplomacy' and 'tact'.

I'm all for diplomacy and tact but at least in our present political climate, neither of those seem to attract voters as much as a war. Look at what has happened to Obama while attempting to use sanctions against Iran instead of a military strike. Not only do voters think he is weak, his popularity is also suffering because of the resultant higher gas prices. Voters seem to prefer a president with a certain arrogance to one with a careful, reasoned approach. That does not bode well for diplomacy and tact.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Just to step back a second, where is the actual evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? IIRC they're a signatory to the NPT and have been working with the IAEA*. Also for those advocating a military intervention of Iran do you realize how difficult that would be for even the United States? It's bigger in population and area than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, not to mention being more industrious and organised.

Considering the previous interference in Iran's internal affairs by the US and the UK (instigating action to remove the democratically elected government of Iran and install a dictator because our oil interests were threatened) I would hope that we would be ashamed enough to grow up instead of still thinking that the world is a beat to be policed. At least we could acknowledge that hostility towards the west is partly our fault in the first place.

I'm not saying that the Iranian government isn't horrible and it wouldn't be desirable for another revolution but I'm always saddened to see people in the west beat their chests and call for arms against a country for little or no justifiable reason.

*EDIT: I have just read the most recent IAEA report which highlights concerns over the level of cooperation with Iran. Whilst the Iranian government is cooperating there are still areas where they haven't been forthcoming hence the report concludes that it cannot guarantee that all activities are peaceful. Whilst this is obviously undesirable it is no confirmation of military developments. This whole situation seems to me far to confrontational, positive diplomacy (a carrot to complement the sanction stick) should be encouraged long before military intervention is tabled. A little off-topic but this seems to be an example of a weakness in democracy; an issue becomes highly topical even if there is scant credible information and opinion about it yet politicians can't afford to be seen as weak on it so they jump to be the one to sound toughest.

 

[russ_watters]

Just to step back a second, where is the actual evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? IIRC they're a signatory to the NPT and have been working with the IAEA*. [snip] I have just read the most recent IAEA report which highlights concerns over the level of cooperation with Iran. Whilst the Iranian government is cooperating there are still areas where they haven't been forthcoming hence the report concludes that it cannot guarantee that all activities are peaceful. Whilst this is obviously undesirable it is no confirmation of military developments.

While all of that is accurate, you're reading the burden of proof backwards. International observation is a requirement of the NPT. Not getting it is (IMO and in the opinion of much of the international community) a violation worthy of being challenged. This is a serious issue and Iran needs to take it seriously.

Also for those advocating a military intervention of Iran do you realize how difficult that would be for even the United States? It's bigger in population and area than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, not to mention being more industrious and organised.

I'm not advocating military action, but you're misconstruing what would be involved. I've never seen anyone suggest anything more than airstrikes of the type Israel did to Iraq in 1980.

Considering the previous interference in Iran's internal affairs by the US and the UK (instigating action to remove the democratically elected government of Iran and install a dictator because our oil interests were threatened) I would hope that we would be ashamed enough to grow up instead of still thinking that the world is a beat to be policed.

1. The world is our beat to be policed. It is that way because the rest of the West has chosen to de-militarize to the point where the only nation capable of large-scale use of military force is the US. So when there's a problem that needs to be resolved with significant military force, only the US can do it. And for me, it is our Moral Imperative.

2. If not ever having done something objectionable is the criteria for being allowed to engage in international discourse, there'd be no such thing as diplomacy. It is beyond absurd to say that the US should butt-out because of things that happened 30 years ago. Plenty has happened in the 30 years since that makes it right for us to butt-in, but more to the point, the here and now should not be subservient to the past.

At least we could acknowledge that hostility towards the west is partly our fault in the first place.

Sure.

Now what? Does the fact that we've done things they don't like make it ok to nuke us? You're arguing against your point, Ryan!

This whole situation seems to me far to confrontational, positive diplomacy (a carrot to complement the sanction stick) should be encouraged long before military intervention is tabled.

The carrot was already offered and is always on the table: it is the benefits of being in compliance with the NPT.