Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Iran's nukes: posturing and playground politics.

  1. May 4, 2006 #1
    Is Iran really that big a threat? Posturing and playground politics.

    I have the link for this but since you need to be a subscriber to NS magazine theres little point in putting up the URL, so heres the article in full.

    My question is if the US knows that Iran has very little real ability to enrich Uranium enough to make nukes, what sort of political game is this and should we bo so quick to jump to conclusions based on the Bush propaganda machine?

    Is Iran any sort of real threat, and more importantly will Iran ever be a serious threat, it claims it's enriching Uranium for peaceful use, and it seems currently that's all it can do? Are we talking about what ifs and maybes? Is this poker politics? Or more aptly perhaps playground politics?

    Oh yeah!?! Well my dads bigger'n your dad. :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. May 4, 2006 #2

    J77

    User Avatar

    The title's not a good start - to me it implies that Iran has nuclear weapons which, afaik, is wrong.

    ****, they're probably less well armed than Iraq was.
     
  4. May 4, 2006 #3
    I agree so I changed it just for you or at least the title anyway. Somewhat misleading.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  5. May 4, 2006 #4

    J77

    User Avatar

    I didn't necessarily mean your title - I see you just took it from the NS article :smile:
     
  6. May 4, 2006 #5
  7. May 4, 2006 #6
    Is that a credible web site or a conspiracy web site? If it is then your saying the US are willing to send it's population to death not for democracy but for a buck. Capatalism gone evil. If that is indeed true which I'm not sure then the US leadership must easily be the most ruthlessly evil leadership since Hitler. Mind you Germany had the decency to tell it's soldiers what they were dying for. I'm not convinced that is anything more than a conspiracy theory though.

    Wow I should really have put Bush claims Iran will nuke west in two years. Get more interest in that than you would a claim that the US has again been pretty much lying it's ass off again in a sort of lie off with Iran. I guess that's not news any more though is it :wink:

    What we are basically asking at the moment is that Iran stop enrichment to levels for peaceful use, in the fear that it might be able one day in a galaxy far far away be able to build enough functioning enrichment facilities to build one nuke. I'm beginning to wonder if the question is not is Iran looking to build nukes, but how long is the US going to maintain this charade and how gulible do they think people are?

    I was skeptical about this whole deal in the first place, primarily because I'm now pretty sure both Bush and Blair openly lied about the situation in Iraq,at first Iran was suspicion based on past history but now I'm a bit more sure in my skepticism, I've seen nothing yet that would confirm the US's suggestions.

    Why don't the US just sell the nukes to Iran, instead of just giving them the facilities to enrich uranium if they want a war so bad?:wink: :smile:

    I'm getting the feeling that that is the only way Iran will ever obtain nukes. That and Israel donating them with extreme prejudice :smile:
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  8. May 4, 2006 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    After only a brief look, I don't think I'd go so far to say it is a conspiracy theory website, but it is a highly biased and very speculative site. "Peak Oil" does have a fair number of crackpot followers, but the concept itself is relatively sound (it is mostly basic economics).
     
  9. May 4, 2006 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The problem is that this is a copyright violation. Sorry, but must edit the original post.

    If you wish to post key statements or re-edit that's fine, but it is illegal to post half or more of any copyright protected material.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  10. May 5, 2006 #9
    Oh no problem I'll fish another bit of information out at some point, I don't think there's much interest in this subject any more any way. I've seen plenty of reports in the media claiming Iran may develope nukes, but precous little evidence that it in fact can. To me this is beginning to look politically motivated, and nothing to do with the declared intentions, whilst I don't want to create conspiracy I demand stronger Coffee with my breakfast I suggest people either dont sleep or wake up and smell some.

    The only problem with that web site is the sort of machinations they are talking about seem not to be working, thus I'd give it little credence, war as England showed is seldom cheap. We lost a colossal amount of money fighting two of them.
     
  11. May 5, 2006 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What evidence do you need? This isn't 1945 - the technology required is not all that advanced anymore. The most important requirements are a supply of uranium (which they have) and the desire to spend a lot of money on it. They most certainly can build a nuclear weapon if they want to.
     
  12. May 5, 2006 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Supposedly Iran has enriched uranium to 3.6% U-235. This is a concentration sufficient for an LWR (VVER, a Russian equivalent). A CANDU reactor could use natural U, so no enrichment would be necessary.

    The question is whether or not the enrichment stops at 5%, the current international limit for commercial fuel, or does Iran plan to continue enriching to 80% or greater. They certainly have the means, motivation and opportunity.
     
  13. May 5, 2006 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    To clarify that a little, there isn't a technological barrier between 5% and 80% enrichment. It is primarily a matter of effort.
     
  14. May 5, 2006 #13

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Exactly. They got to 3.6% using centrifuges, and they can go beyond - it's must a matter of time and will.

    The political side of the story is that they do not wish to be monitored by the IAEA, or anyone else. If they are just doing commercial enrichment, what's the big deal.

    In the US, the DOE monitors the commercial enrichment program and fuel cycles, and accounts for every gram of U. The weapons program is completely separate.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2006
  15. May 5, 2006 #14

    Art

    User Avatar

    My understanding is they were allowing the IAEA full access including surprise spot checks but the US and others said this wasn't good enough as they just don't want Iran to gain the know-how of the uranium enrichment cycle and were prepared to use force to forestall them. This is why the Iranians made such a show of their recent success in this area.

    So now the cat is out of the bag what is the point of UN security council action now? The Iranians cannot be forced to unlearn what they have learned and so the original reason for bringing the matter to the security council is now obsolete.

    The Iranians curtailed IAEA inspections after their referral to the UN security council but have offered to reinstate full access if the issue is contained within the IAEA. This route seems the best way of making sure Iran stays within the enrichment limits laid down by the IAEA to achieve the stated aim of ensuring Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon..

    IMO it is likely that although initially it was true they were only interested in making nuclear grade fuel I would be very surprised given the threats against them if they are not now working feverishly to develop a bomb as a deterrent.

    What puzzles me is why, given their history, are both Japan and Germany being allowed to enrich uranium without a murmer from the international community?? Whilst Iran with no history of aggression is being threatened with all kinds of dire consequences if they continue to exercise their rights under the NPT.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2006
  16. May 5, 2006 #15

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What gets me in all the enrichment talk is that it is always assumed that the problem is the Iranians might highly enriched uranium for weapons. But reactor grade uranium would permit them to make weapons grade plutonium in Hanford style reactors, no? That would require more sophisticated bomb technology, but I don't think it's necessarily beyond them.
     
  17. May 5, 2006 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    They could use CANDU technology, or enriched U in LWRs or Graphite moderated reactors, any of which could be used to make Pu-239, which is the preferred fissile material for nuclear weapons. Making the Pu-239 then requires reprocessing technology to separate it from the U-238. Not terribly difficult.

    The argument about enrichment is a bit spurious.

    As for the technology - it appears that the Iranians already have it.

    I don't know why they just don't buy nuclear warheads from Pakistan or North Korea and save themselves the trouble.
     
  18. May 5, 2006 #17

    Art

    User Avatar

    The way they have been behaving lately one wonders if they haven't already. :eek:
     
  19. May 5, 2006 #18
    More information as promised.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1766110,00.html

    With only 800 or so working centrifuges, at the moment it would take 3 years to make enough enriched uranium for a single nuke. What Iran would need effort wise is a serious commitment to building nukes and a huge infusion of funds, something it's shown historically it lacks. If UN inspectors were let back in we could see for ourselves the poor state of affairs at the moment. I think this is propaganda again, and Iran and the US are playing poker with each other. Personally I don't see where the threat is ATM, there simply is nothing but a level to use peacefully and I'm honestly of the opinion unless I see counter evidence, that any other speculation is merely that. The burden of proof is most assuredly on the US and hopefully the IAEA's shoulders.

    It's a shame I can't print the original article and I'm not sure what would constitute allowable editing, so I'll leave it, it is much more damning than the above report.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2006
  20. May 5, 2006 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    On this issue, there is no such thing as burden of proof. The title of the thread is apt: posturing and playground politics.

    But please bear in mind: it isn't just the US that is posturing. The entire reason we are worried is because Iran is posturing and making threats while simultaneously saying they only want nukes for peace. If you only want nukes for peace, why launch a test missile over Israel when making the announcement? The message that sends is 'we can build weapons if we want to'.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2006
  21. May 6, 2006 #20
    Agreed I'll conceed I'm not being clear and it could be misinterpreted as saying before we make speculation we should see proof, but I'm thinking more about a burden of proof to impose sanctions or in the worst case scenario, for military action whatever that may be. And the fact that both are posturing was in the article and inherent in my original post, unfortunately it got deleted and so the message about playground politics and poker politics was a bit unclear. Take the title of the thread as being indicative of both sides, that is how I meant to convey myself in the OP.

    Everything I say should be taken in context of the end of the article, that is the way it was meant the counter argument to the US is simply trying to pry some real evidence from their stance, as we're already palpably aware of what the Iranians are saying, but not aware perhaps of where they actually are doing.

    Also of course the Iranians are denying that they either need or want nukes, and that the assertions of the US are nonsense, I think their current leadership is playing dangerous games, they have been called to prove their bluff, but the UN has removed weapons inspectors who could decide the issue? This seems to be a strange sort of game to me where they and the US are bluffing, but they are not prepared to show the cards or even required to to win or lose.

    Oh yeah, well I can do Kung FU!

    Oh yeah! Well my Kung Fu is better than yours and I'm a ninja too!! :smile:
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Iran's nukes: posturing and playground politics.
  1. Occupation of Iran (Replies: 193)

  2. Russia and Iran (Replies: 52)

  3. Iran and Nationalism (Replies: 0)

Loading...