News Iran's proposed nuclear plant: electricity generation or weapons grade

[ensabah6]

For those familar with Irans current nuclear power plant that is under construction, the Iranians claim is for peaceful electrical generation but Israelis claim it is used to enrich Uranium for the purpose of WMD.

Any comments on Iranian under construction nuclear plant?

 

[mathman]

The problem is not with the nuclear power plant, but with the facility used to enrich Uranium. Enriching it to about 7% U235 (I am not sure of the exact %) makes it reactor grade. Enriching it to 90% makes it weapons grade. Since the same process is used for both, this raises concerns in Israel and the rest of the world.

 

[ensabah6]

The problem is not with the nuclear power plant, but with the facility used to enrich Uranium. Enriching it to about 7% U235 (I am not sure of the exact %) makes it reactor grade. Enriching it to 90% makes it weapons grade. Since the same process is used for both, this raises concerns in Israel and the rest of the world.

ok thanks. Would UN inspect be able to do this?

 

[Astronuc]

ok thanks. Would UN inspect be able to do this?

The UN's IAEA has the responsibility of inspection, but only if the Iranians allow them to inspect the enrichment facility. The same facility can produce low enrichment or high enrichment.

LWR plants use up to 5% enrichment.

 

[Count Iblis]

Yes, inspections are sufficient to verify that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons. The problem is that the US and Israel are afraid that Iran will leave the NPT treaty in the future and then use its enrichment facilities to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

I've read that during the EU-3 negotiations with Iran, the Europeans were willing to consider plans allowing Iran to enrich uranium under extra inspections. But the US found that unacceptable, plans were revised, and Iran was asked to "voluntarily" give up their enrichment or else face punishment ("voluntarily" seems to have the same meaning here as when someone robbing a bank were to ask the bank clerk to "voluntarily" hand over all the money in the bank or else...).


I think that the approach by the West doesn't make sense, even from the Western point of view. Suppose we want to minimize the risk that Iran will produce nuclear weapons. Then, if we offer Iran an incentives package in exchange for Iran stopping the enrichment activities and Iran were to accept that, then what will happen next? We offered that package because we didn't trust Iran. So, how can we then trust Iran not to enrich uranium at some secret location?


So, sooner or later, there will be some suspicion that Iran is violating the terms of the agreement and then we would like to do some inspections. But under the deal, Iran just made a huge consession by shutting down the facility at Natanz, so it is difficult to see how we could negotiate the right to inspect everywhere in Iran.


Another thing is that if Iran wants to make a nuclear weapon and they want to take their time, they could do that with a modest number of centrifuges. Now, Iran says it wants to build a few nuclear powerplants. These plants will use uranium at a certain rate, so the enrichment facilites must be able to produce the enriched uranium at a fast enough rate to be able to supply those plants. So, Iran's refusal to give up uranium enrichment is consistent with peaceful intentions. If Iran wanted to make nuclear weapons, they could accept the incentives deal, shut down Natanz and then run some centrifuges at undisclosed locations.


So, i.m.o., the current approach by the West is fundamentally flawed. It would be much better to allow Iran to do what every other NPT member is allowed to do. We could negotiate that the IAEA should have extra inspections rights in exchange for some incentives. It would also be easier for Iran to agree on giving information on its past activities if we didn't demand that Iran suspend its enrichment program.


I've read that Iran is now not far away from achieving its goal of achieving industrial scale enrichment capabilites. So, then the issue becomes moot. Because then Iran could say: "Ok., we are where we want to be, we're ready to suspend enrichment and we'll now build our powerplants."

 

[epenguin]

So your argument is that anyone who appears innocent is suspect as their appearance of innocence suggests they are hiding something, while someone whose activities and evasions give rise, like Iran's, to grave and serious suspicion must be innocent as if they were really up to something nefarious they would hide it and appear innocent?

 

[Count Iblis]

So your argument is that anyone who appears innocent is suspect as their appearance of innocence suggests they are hiding something, while someone whose activities and evasions give rise, like Iran's, to grave and serious suspicion must be innocent as if they were really up to something nefarious they would hide it and appear innocent?

My core argument is simply that we in the West are not thinking pragmatically. Even assuming that there are grounds to be suspicious, the current course doesn't make any sense. We need far more inspections than Iran is legally obliged to allow for (if you ask me this is to satisfy our paranoia, but if I'm wrong then we would need those inspections anyway). The last thing we need to do to get Iran to allow for such inspections is by demanding that they shut down their enrichment facility.

Note that, as explained in my previous posting, Iran suspending enrichment an Natanz is not going to take away our fears of a nuclear Iran (again, whether that suspicion then justified or not does not matter, hypothetically Iran could actually make nuclear weapons after shutting down Natanz). So we really need more inspections in Iran anyway.


You can compare this to Iraqs alleged WMDs. That was driven by a lot of suspicions. Regardless of whether those suspicions were justified otr not, the issue could only be resolved peacefully by inspections. But it was clear that the US and Britain were only in it for a guilty verdict. When it seemed unlikely that they would get official backing from the Security Council for that, they went ahead with the war.

 

[OmCheeto]

Why don't we just let them build the bomb?
They are surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons.

In a couple of years, they'll probably buy a few from China anyways.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701680.html"
Tehran Increasingly Important in Beijing's Energy Quest

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2007; Page A20

The rapidly growing relationship between Iran and China has begun to undermine international efforts to ensure that Iran cannot convert a peaceful energy program to develop a nuclear arsenal, U.S. and European officials say.

...

"Iran has become the engineer of China's economic growth. It may not be like Saudi Arabia is to the U.S. economy, but it's close," Berman said.

"We're presenting China with an untenable proposition. We're asking them to unilaterally divest from Iran and not offering them energy alternatives. This is not sustainable for policy-makers whose predominant priority is to maintain and expand their country's growth,"

I am still baffled as to the reason we are so paranoid of Iran.

 

[ensabah6]

The UN's IAEA has the responsibility of inspection, but only if the Iranians allow them to inspect the enrichment facility. The same facility can produce low enrichment or high enrichment.

LWR plants use up to 5% enrichment.

Is the Iranian current design capable of civilian electrical energy production?

 

[vanesch]

Is the Iranian current design capable of civilian electrical energy production?

Haha, that would be funny: they've forgotten to install some turbines and generators

 

[Astronuc]

Is the Iranian current design capable of civilian electrical energy production?

The Bushehr plants are VVER-1000/446 and they are designed to produce electricity (similar to Russian NPP's Novovoronezh II, Zaparozhe, Kalinin, S. Ukraine, and Koodankulam (India)). There are also concerns that they could be used to produce Pu for weapons, but that would require reprocessing of the spent fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER
http://insp.pnl.gov/-profiles-reactors-vver1000.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm


The US, EU and Russia maintain that Iran can simply purchase fuel from Russia or EU, and that there is no need for Iran to enrich U and make their own fuel. The spent fuel could be returned to Russia or EU. Of course, Iran sees any restriction on enrichment or fuel manufacturing as an infringement on its sovereignty, which of course it is.

 

[ensabah6]

Haha, that would be funny: they've forgotten to install some turbines and generators

just checking :)

 

[ensabah6]

The Bushehr plants are VVER-1000/446 and they are designed to produce electricity (similar to Russian NPP's Novovoronezh II, Zaparozhe, Kalinin, S. Ukraine, and Koodankulam (India)). There are also concerns that they could be used to produce Pu for weapons, but that would require reprocessing of the spent fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER
http://insp.pnl.gov/-profiles-reactors-vver1000.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm


The US, EU and Russia maintain that Iran can simply purchase fuel from Russia or EU, and that there is no need for Iran to enrich U and make their own fuel. The spent fuel could be returned to Russia or EU. Of course, Iran sees any restriction on enrichment or fuel manufacturing as an infringement on its sovereignty, which of course it is.

Ok thanks for the info -- It's reassuring to know that the Iranian nuclear plants under development are capable of energy production

 

[Morbius]

My core argument is simply that we in the West are not thinking pragmatically. Even assuming that there are grounds to be suspicious, the current course doesn't make any sense. We need far more inspections than Iran is legally obliged to allow for (if you ask me this is to satisfy our paranoia, but if I'm wrong then we would need those inspections anyway). The last thing we need to do to get Iran to allow for such inspections is by demanding that they shut down their enrichment facility.

Count Iblis,

You are 100% WRONG when you say "...more inspections than Iran is legally obligated to allow..."

The NPT states that Iran has to allow WHATEVER the IAEA wants in terms of inspections. There's
no "minimum level" that Iran required to allow; and above that it is gratis.

NO - the NPT does not have a concept of "innocent until proven guilty" - it has precisely the opposite.

The NPT signatory has to transparent and, in essence; has to PROVE to the IAEA that its activities
are NOT for producing weapons. In order to do so; they have to prove whatever level of access the
IAEA requires.

Iran has NOT been providing the acess. That is one of the reasons that the IAEA reported Iran to the
United Nations Security Council as being in VIOLATION of the NPT.

Additionally; on an inspection of Natanz - the IAEA found that the equipment had already been in
operation; and had also found traces of HEU - Highly Enriched Uranium - i.e. weapons grade Uranium.

This is a VIOLATION by Iran. First Iran was NOT supposed to opperate those centrifuges before they
were inspected by the IAEA. Additionally, there is NO EXCUSE for the IAEA finding traces of
weapons grade Uranium in those centrifuges.

THAT is why Iran is in "hot water" with the United Nations Security Council.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mgb_phys]

Whats the penalty for violating the NPT?

 

[Morbius]

Why don't we just let them build the bomb?
They are surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons.

OrnCheeto,

One of the problems is that Iran could SMUGGLE a nuclear weapon into the USA and destroy
a US city. Given Iran's behavior in the past; I don't think we or the rest of the world would
trust them with that capability.

By SMUGGLING a bomb in - your "fingerprints" may not be on the bomb. If a nation were to launch
a nuclear-armed missile at a US city and destroyed it - we sure know who to retailiate against - we
would have the radar track of the missile. If you smuggle a bomb in - you don't have that information.

Iran may feel that it can smuggle a bomb into the USA, destroy a US city, and escape retaliation
because the USA won't have the proof needed to retailiate against them.

Former UCLA Chancellor and former Professor of Nuclear Engineering Dr. Albert Carnesale talked
about nuclear terrorism in his February 2002 speech "Rethiniking Natioal Security":

http://www.ucnuclearfree.org/articles/2002/02/22_carnesale_rethinking-national-security.pdf

From page 13:

We must also address the security of our borders. For example, the cargo containers that come into our
country every day -- by ship, by rail, and by truck -- are large enough to hold many nuclear weapons. A
nuclear weapon could fit in the trunk of your Toyota

On page 10, Dr. Carnesale stated back in 2002 that if the Iraqis refused the inspectors, their facilities
should be destroyed:

If Iraq continues to deny access to UN inspectors, the United States and others, in my view should seek
to destroy Iraqi facilities related to weapons of mass destruction.

That same logic applies equally to Iran.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Whats the penalty for violating the NPT?

mgb_phys,

Unfortunately, unlike criminal laws, Treaties don't specify penalties. Treaties are supposed
to be "self-enforcing" if they are written properly. I'll do something that you want - if you do
something that I want in return.

The arms treaties between the USA and Russia are examples. Both sides decide that they will limit
their arsenals to "X" weapons. If one side starts building more; the other side will build more; and
building more by the first party is self-defeating.

The problem with the NPT is that it does lack explicit "teeth". However, if a nation is found to be
in violation of the NPT - the United Nations Security Council can sanction that nation - which the SC
has done to Iran.

If the nation still refuses - as Iran has done - then the Security Council can ratchet up the punishments.
Where it goes is determined by what the Security Council is willing to mete out.

When Iraq didnt't comply with UN resolutions in 1990 / 1991 to get out of Kuwait - they were threatened
with "severe consequences". Those "severe consequences" turned out to be an attack by the USA and its allies.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

So, i.m.o., the current approach by the West is fundamentally flawed. It would be much better to allow Iran to do what every other NPT member is allowed to do.

Count Iblis,

The NPT is NOT "symmetric" - it does NOT define equal rights for all members. Some members - the
"nuclear five" are allowed to have nuclear weapons and enrich Uranium to high levels. The USA is one
of the "nuclear five". Iran is NOT!

Iran knew the NPT was not symmetric when it signed it - and it VOLUNTARILY signed.

Iran is being treated NO DIFFERENTLY than any other non-nuclear weapon state is being treated in
similar circumstances.

If you are a law abiding citizen - the police leave you alone. If you give the police "probably cause"
to believe that you are committing a crime - then they can get a search warrant and search your home.

In such a case; you are NOT being "singled out" or being persecuted - you GAVE the police the
"probable cause" and they would do the same to any citizen.

By VIOLATING the NPT - by not being transparent; by operating the centrifuges before the IAEA
inspected them; by making trace amounts of HEU - highly enriched uranium - Iran has provided
the "probable cause" that triggers greater attention by the IAEA and the United Nations.

IRAN is AT FAULT for its current predicament - NOT the USA and the Europeans.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mgb_phys]

So what's the consequences of simply dropping out of the NPT?
The NPT is not-symetric, but in return for agreeing not to build weapons the non-weapon states are supposed to receive nuclear power technology assistance from the weapons states.
In addition the weapons states are supposed to not pass on weapons to third parties and are supposed to reduce their own stockpiles.
Since they haven't done this it's not clear what the benefits of the NPT are to a non-weapons state.

Iran could also argue that the treaty was signed by the Shah on the orders of his western backers and so it is invalid - France wouldn't be bound by a treaty signed by Pétain whille under Nazi occupation.

 

[Morbius]

So what's the consequences of simply dropping out of the NPT?
The NPT is not-symetric, but in return for agreeing not to build weapons the non-weapon states are supposed to receive nuclear power technology assistance from the weapons states.
In addition the weapons states are supposed to not pass on weapons to third parties and are supposed to reduce their own stockpiles.
Since they haven't done this it's not clear what the benefits of the NPT are to a non-weapons state.

Iran could also argue that the treaty was signed by the Shah on the orders of his western backers and so it is invalid - France wouldn't be bound by a treaty signed by Pétain whille under Nazi occupation.

mgb_phys,

Oh but they HAVE received the access and technology that they were promised. For example,
the Iranians got access for their students to US universities to study nuclear technology.

When I was in graduate school, there was a special program under President Carter that afforded
Iranian students access to the nuclear technology graduate program that I studied in.

I don't think Iran can make that argument. It would be like President Obama claiming he was not
bound by the Moscow Treaty of 2002 because it was negotiated and signed by President Bush.

That argument DOESN'T work. In 2002, the President of the USA was George W. Bush - and as
President, he can sign Treaties on behalf of the USA; and the USA is bound by them if the Treaty
is agreed to by the Senate - as provided in the Constitution.

President Obama can't back out of the Moscow Treaty of 2002 just because it was signed by Bush.

At the time of Iran's entry into the NPT - the Shah was the ruler of Iran. Just because they got new
rulers doesn't mean that they don't have obligations under the Treaty. After all; when the Shah was
deposed - the Iranians did NOT GIVE BACK all the "goodies" they got under the NPT.

Since they kept the "goodies' - data, educated students... I could make the argument that they
ACCEPTED the NPT at that point.

You don't get to "pick and choose" what Treaty provisions you are bound by and which you aren't
bound by. You can't accept the "goodies" you got under a Treaty; and then say, "Oh, I'm a different
ruler - I didn't sign that Treaty - therefore I don't have obligations - even though I accepted the goodies".

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

So what's the consequences of simply dropping out of the NPT?

mgb_phys,

I don't think the NPT has a "drop out" clause that would allow Iran to simply "drop out".

As I recall, Article X of the NPT provides for a nation to "drop out" under "extraordinary events".

They have to justify those "extraordinary events" to the UN Security Council.

I don't see any recent "extraordinary events" that would allow Iran to cede from the NPT.

Additionally, in the NPT Review of 1995, President Cliinton renegotiated the "drop out" provisions to make it
even more difficult for a signatory to cede from the NPT. I don't have the current text of those
additional restrictions; but President Clinton negotiated them in preparation for a CTBT - Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't think Iran can make that argument. It would be like President Obama claiming he was not
bound by the Moscow Treaty of 2002 because it was negotiated and signed by President Bush.

Presumably he wouldn't be bound by treaties signed by Cornwallis?

ps. My ugrad uni trained all of Iraq's nuclear scientists - they are hoping to hire them all back since closing lots of physics depts has left the UK rather short of people to build all the new power stations.

 

[Morbius]

Presumably he wouldn't be bound by treaties signed by Cornwallis?

mgb_phys,

Again - Iran did NOT GIVE BACK the "goodies" it got under the NPT. It did not give back data,
educated students... so I think one can say they accepted the terms.

In any case, the United Nations Security Council believes that Iran is bound by the NPT - and
that is all that really matters.

If Iran replays the same intransigence that Iraq showed; then the United Nations Security Council
could give its blessings to attack Iran just as it gave its blessings to attack Iraq in 1991.

The President-Elect Barack Obama has said that Iran will not become a nuclear weapons power;
because that would be a "game changer" in his words.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/23/1218024.aspx

On Iran, Obama said he would take no options off the table in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.

"A nuclear Iran would be a game changing situation not just in the Middle East but around the world,"
he said. "Whatever is- remains of our nuclear non-proliferation framework, I think would begin to disintegrate."

A lot of good it will do for Iran to cry, "We withdraw from the NPT" when there are bombs from the
US Air Force falling down on them.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Count Iblis]

Dr. Gregory Greenman,

Every NPT member has the right to leave the NPT by giving a three months notice. No reasons have to be given.

Fundamentally, the NPT is simply a treaty that allows countries to get nuclear technology without the countries giving that technology contributing to nuclear proliferation. Countries wouldn't have signed a treaty restricting what they can do. So, countries like India, Israel etc. didn't sign it, because they didn't need assistence to develop nuclear technology.

Iran, despite being a member of the NPT was denied access to nuclear technology by the US. They exerted pressure on other countries not to supply Iran with technology they were legally allowed to obtain. This is a violation of the NPT by the US.

Iran then obtained nuclear technology on the black market. That's also a violation of the NPT. But subsequent inspections by the IAEA have not found that Iran used the obtained technology for military purposes.

Anyway, the spirit of the NPT is that you don't want to give countries nuclear technologies if these are diverted to produce bombs. But the problem with Iran is exactly the opposite of Iran getting a lot of nuclear technology from, say, Germany and the US, and then Iran subsequently diverting it to produce nukes.

Now, we can use a lot of obscure technicalities to argue why Iran should not mine their own uranium, use their own centrifuges to make nuclear fuel for their own powerplants. Right or wrong, this is nver going to be accepted by the Iranians.

Kerry lost the US elections because Bush was able to twist his words about military interventions into something like: "Kerry wants to have an international test to decide when we can deploy our military". Should France be able to deny the US the sovereign right to attack a counry?

Now, if Amercans cannot accept foreign powers to stand in the way of their "sovereign decision" to attack some other country, how can the same people think that Iran won't mind foreign powers blocking their right to mine and use their own uranium, assuming that everyting is under inspections?

So, while from a purely legal point of view, you may well be right, the solution proposed by the West can never be acceptable to even a pro-Western Iranian government.

 

[Count Iblis]

A lot of good it will do for Iran to cry, "We withdraw from the NPT" when there are bombs from the
US Air Force falling down on them.

Yep, a dispute about enrichment may escalate to a big war. The number of civilians killed in Iraq was of similar order as the number of people killed in Hiroshima, in case of Iran it will be much more. To prevent a small unlikely problem we must create a far bigger problem, the Neo-Con doctrine says.

 

[Morbius]

Every NPT member has the right to leave the NPT by giving a three months notice. No reasons have to be given.

Count Iblis,

I think you need to go back and reread Article X; especially how it was modified by
President Clinton during the 1995 NPT review.

Iran, despite being a member of the NPT was denied access to nuclear technology by the US. They exerted pressure on other countries not to supply Iran with technology they were legally allowed to obtain. This is a violation of the NPT by the US.

100% WRONG!

Iran was never denied access until AFTER it violated the NPT.

Iran then obtained nuclear technology on the black market. That's also a violation of the NPT. But subsequent inspections by the IAEA have not found that Iran used the obtained technology for military purposes.

The IAEA did find that Iran enriched Uranium to HEU levels - and reported Iran to the
United Nations Security Council as being in VIOLATION of the NPT. Why do you think
there presently are SANCTIONS by the SC against Iran?

So, while from a purely legal point of view, you may well be right, the solution proposed by the West can never be acceptable to even a pro-Western Iranian government.

If they can not accept the solution; then they are then just going to have to accept
being sanctioned by the United Nations possibly including being bombed by the USA.

Both President Bush and President-Elect Obama have made it clear that they will NOT
allow Iran to become a nuclear power. The USA has the power to prevent it.

The USA knows where the facilities like Natanz are - and those facilities could
DISAPPEAR in a single night on the command of the President.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Yep, a dispute about enrichment may escalate to a big war. The number of civilians killed in Iraq was of similar order as the number of people killed in Hiroshima, in case of Iran it will be much more. To prevent a small unlikely problem we must create a far bigger problem, the Neo-Con doctrine says.

Count Iblis,

I don't see where "neo-con doctrine" enters into this AT ALL!

Iran is in VIOLATION of the NPT. The UN has sanctioned Iran and Iran is ignoring
the UN. Further sanctions are the likely result of increased intransigence.

By what "logic" [ term used loosely ] did you arrive at the ill-considered opinion that
this has something to do with "neo con doctrine"?

The USA hasn't been the prime mover pushing for sanctions in the United Nations;
the European nations have. So where do you get this "phony baloney" contention
that this is based on "neo con doctrine".

If the United Nations calls for military strikes against Iran to prevent Iran from
making nuclear weapons - and that causes Iranian citizens to be killed - then
they need not look any further than their own government when it comes to
assigning blame for their deaths - regardless of how many are killed.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Every NPT member has the right to leave the NPT by giving a three months notice. No reasons have to be given.

Count Iblis,

See "The Right to Withdraw from the NPT: Article X is Not Unconditional"
[Courtesy of Stanford University]

http://cisac.stanford.edu/publicati..._the_npt__article_x_is_not_unconditional_the/

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd79/79gbjr.htm

The language and history of Article X, combined with the provisions of the UN
Charter, effectively constituted a request by NPT parties that the Security Council
should police withdrawals to make sure that they do not threaten international
peace and security. Under the UN Charter, the Council has clear authority to
stop a withdrawal, to impose sanctions on the withdrawing NPT party or to
require such a party to give up nuclear materials or equipment acquired while it
was still an NPT party.

Even IF Iran withdrew - that does NOT absolve them of their obligations.

From the United States Dept of State:

http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/46644.htm

One thing should be made clear at the outset. Withdrawal does not absolve a state of any
violation of the Treaty that was committed while still a party to the Treaty. Should a party
withdraw from the Treaty before it remedies any violations that it has committed, that
state remains accountable for those violations even after it withdraws from
the Treaty.

So Iran can NOT escape responsibility and sanctions for its VIOLATIONS even IF
Iran were to attempt to withdraw.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[epenguin]

Iran could also argue that the treaty was signed by the Shah on the orders of his western backers and so it is invalid - France wouldn't be bound by a treaty signed by Pétain whille under Nazi occupation.

It could argue that but it doesn't. It could, as mentioned, withdraw from and denounce the Treaty, as N.Korea did, but it hasn't.

It claims that it is conforming with the Treaty. It is its anxious apologists who gratuitously take on the job of making this (quoted) case for it. Presumably it will do so when it feels unattackable, e.g. when it has the bomb.

It is claiming none too convincingly that it is not doing anything in the direction of acquiring nuclear weapons at the same time its aplogists are arguing that it is fine for it to do so.

Somebody asked what advantages it gets from observing the Treaty? It gets advantages from breaking it! The EU States and Russia have fallen over themselves trying to appease it with 'inducements', it is getting a lot of what it wants from Russia anyway. but it has played such hardball that it doesn't look as if it is just playing to up the price. It is not the price it is playing for, it is time.

 

[Morbius]

Now, if Amercans cannot accept foreign powers to stand in the way of their "sovereign decision" to attack some other country, how can the same people think that Iran won't mind foreign powers blocking their right to mine and use their own uranium, assuming that everyting is under inspections?

Count Iblis,

If they wanted to have an unfettered right to mine and use their own uranium; then
they shouldn't have signed the NPT.

However, they DID - and with that came additional responsibilities in return for the
advantages listed by the State Dept. in my previous post.

Iran can't simply "pretend" that it didn't sign the NPT and say that it has a right that
it freely relinquished.

Additionally, there is no parity or comparison between Iran and the USA; any more than
there is a parity or comparison between a convicted felon that wants to own a gun,
and the right to own a gun by someone who had just been named "Police Officer of the Year"

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Phyicist

 

[OmCheeto]

OrnCheeto,

One of the problems is that Iran could SMUGGLE a nuclear weapon into the USA and destroy a US city.

So could any other nation with nuclear weapons.

Given Iran's behavior in the past; I don't think we or the rest of the world would
trust them with that capability.

I'm not familiar with behavior on the part of Iran which makes them appear to be more of a threat than any other country.

On page 10, Dr. Carnesale stated back in 2002 that if the Iraqis refused the inspectors, their facilities
should be destroyed:

If Iraq continues to deny access to UN inspectors, the United States and others, in my view should seek to destroy Iraqi facilities related to weapons of mass destruction.

That same logic applies equally to Iran.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

As I've stated before, Iran is not Iraq.
Your logic is flawed, imho.

And I find your promotion of the use of weapons of major destruction on another nation, simply because you disagree with them, repulsive.

 

[russ_watters]

This is an engineering forum, not the politics forum. Moving...

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not familiar with behavior on the part of Iran which makes them appear to be more of a threat than any other country.

Was that intended to be a serious statement? C'mon.

And I find your promotion of the use of weapons of major destruction on another nation...

"Weapons of major distruction"? Did you just make that up? It isn't funny or particularly clever.

...simply because you disagree with them, repulsive.

Don't be glib. I think it is abundantly clear that this is more than just about "disagreeing with them". The NPT and nuclear weapons are serious issues and violations of that treaty should be taken and treated seriously.

 

[Art]

Count Iblis,

You are 100% WRONG when you say "...more inspections than Iran is legally obligated to allow..."

The NPT states that Iran has to allow WHATEVER the IAEA wants in terms of inspections. There's
no "minimum level" that Iran required to allow; and above that it is gratis.

NO - the NPT does not have a concept of "innocent until proven guilty" - it has precisely the opposite.

The NPT signatory has to transparent and, in essence; has to PROVE to the IAEA that its activities
are NOT for producing weapons. In order to do so; they have to prove whatever level of access the
IAEA requires.

Iran has NOT been providing the acess. That is one of the reasons that the IAEA reported Iran to the
United Nations Security Council as being in VIOLATION of the NPT.

Additionally; on an inspection of Natanz - the IAEA found that the equipment had already been in
operation; and had also found traces of HEU - Highly Enriched Uranium - i.e. weapons grade Uranium.

This is a VIOLATION by Iran. First Iran was NOT supposed to opperate those centrifuges before they
were inspected by the IAEA. Additionally, there is NO EXCUSE for the IAEA finding traces of
weapons grade Uranium in those centrifuges.

THAT is why Iran is in "hot water" with the United Nations Security Council.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Morbious you are incorrect. For the IAEA to have unrestricted access to wherever they like, Iran would need to ratify the additional protocol to the NPT which they refused to do after it was made clear that even if they ratified it they still wouldn't be allowed to enrich uranium. Btw The USA (and 34 other signatories of the NPT) has not yet implemented the additional protocol on the grounds it could jeopardise national security.

Meanwhile the IAEA continues to make inspections of Iran's nuclear sites both announced and unannounced and continues to confirm, within the inspected facilities, they are operating within peaceful parameters. As already suggested, in a post above, if the USA wishes to increase their level of confidence then they should stop threatening Iran, allow them to pursue their perfectly legal, sovereign right to enrich their own fuel, and in return have Iran ratify the additional protocol and so open themselves up to inspections anywhere at any time.

The highly enriched trace particles (36% and 54% - not weapon's grade!) were found on centrifuges imported from Pakistan. The IAEA, following an investigation, concluded that Iran's explanation that the centrifuges arrived in Iran already contaminated, was most likely true.

And if you want an example of a nation unilaterally abandoning a treaty it signed I suggest you read up on the US's abandonment of the ABM Treaty it signed with Russia.

Let's try to keep this discussion factual.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm not familiar with behavior on the part of Iran which makes them appear to be more of a threat than any other country.

Was that intended to be a serious statement? C'mon.

Yes.

And I find your promotion of the use of weapons of major destruction on another nation...

"Weapons of major distruction"? Did you just make that up? It isn't funny or particularly clever.

Yes I just made it up. And no, I wasn't trying to be funny or clever.

...simply because you disagree with them, repulsive.

Don't be glib. I think it is abundantly clear that this is more than just about "disagreeing with them". The NPT and nuclear weapons are serious issues and violations of that treaty should be taken and treated seriously.

Glib? I don't think so.
Abundantly clear? Yes. But it's way more complicated than the NPT and nuclear weapons.
But that's what this thread is about, and I've attempted to keep it as close to topic as possible. We could diverge and discuss the role of Iran in the future as a world super power, but I suspect that the thread would end up a mess, as do most threads regarding Iran.


I agree with you that nuclear weapons are not something to be taken lightly.

But using non-compliance with the NPT as an excuse to attack another nation is as bad as attacking a nation because you think they have weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Art]

The NPT and nuclear weapons are serious issues and violations of that treaty should be taken and treated seriously.

I'm open to suggestions.

What actions do you think should be taken against the USA for it's non-compliance with the NPT? i.e. providing nuclear know-how and equipment to non-signatory nations, proliferating nuclear weapons in non-nuclear countries, and it's failure to dismantle it's nuclear arsenal; and as it is being used against Iran you can add failure to adhere to the provisions of the additional protocol to the list.

As the only country to have ever actually used a nuclear weapon in anger I would say there is a lot to fear from America's non-compliance.

 

[OmCheeto]

Some of these accusations border on ridiculous:

IAEA

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement and relevant provisions of Security
Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747
(2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran​

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-4.pdf"
Date: 22 February 2008

...Physics Research Centre (PHRC). This equipment was procured by the former head of PHRC, who had also been a professor at the university. He had also procured, or attempted to procure, other equipment, such as balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, which could be useful in uranium enrichment activities.

I cannot imagine a physics research center in any country without the highlighted components.

"Oh look! They've got magnets! That means they're trying to make nuclear weapons!"

It's no wonder Khamenei has a permanent smirk on his face.

 

[Morbius]

So could any other nation with nuclear weapons.

I'm not familiar with behavior on the part of Iran which makes them appear to be more of a threat than any other country.

As I've stated before, Iran is not Iraq.
Your logic is flawed, imho.

And I find your promotion of the use of weapons of major destruction on another nation, simply because you disagree with them, repulsive.

OmCheeto,

WHY is the logic any different?? Both Iraq and Iran are signatories of the NPT - and
BOTH have VIOLATED the terms of a Treaty they voluntarily signed.

Iraq had a very active nuclear weapons program all through the '80s and that program was uncovered
after the Gulf War of 1991. Courtesy of the Federation of American Scientists:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm

Now Iran is in VIOLATION of the NPT and is being sanctioned by the United Nations.

Evidently your reading comprehension is flawed! I don't advocate the use of weapons against
another country because I "disagee" with them. I advocate the use of weapons against another
nation as a last resort to get they to OBEY a TREATY that they VOLUNTARILY SIGNED!

What I find repulsive is people who don't uphold and enforce international laws and treaties.

That's how LARGE WARS get started. I would rather have a small war to enforce the terms
of a treaty rather than have a much bigger war later.

Would not it have been better to have the terms of the treaty ending World War I; which enjoined
Germany from having a large military, enforced; rather than let them start a much bigger conflict?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Art]

I advocate the use of weapons against another
nation as a last resort to get they to OBEY a TREATY that they VOLUNTARILY SIGNED!

What I find repulsive is people who don't uphold and enforce international laws and treaties.


Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

So you are saying America should be attacked for it's non-compliance with the NPT and for breaking the ABM Treaty with Russia??

 

[Count Iblis]

The US exerted pressure on the IAEA board of governors (who were just the foreign ministers, not the experts on nuclear energy), gave a presentation full of flawed/misleading intelligence to get Iran rewferred to the UNCS. Then, after passing a few resolutions, the US no longer had to argue in favor of Iran suspending enrichment on its merits. The role of El Baradei regarding the enrichment issue has been reduced to check if Iran is complying witht the Security Council demands.

Some time ago when El Baradei suggested that it may be better to allow Iran some limited enrichment capabability, Dr. Rice said that El Baradei had to mind his own business. This betrays what the US was always after: Getting in charge of the issue, i.e. Iran has to suspend enrichment because we say so, not because of any alleged violations of the NPT. Because those allegations would be debunked eventually.

But because Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, Iran can simply continue to defy the UNSC. There is no viable military option against Iran. Admiral Mullen told the Israelis to shelve their plans to attack Iran. I think that the US has given the Israelis intelligence that Iran is not a threat, so they don't have to be worried. But intelligence is also about making propaganda to the public, so Israel and the US will continue to say that Iran is a threat. Since the WMD issue in Iraq, these two aspects of intelligence have been well separated.

 

[Morbius]

But using non-compliance with the NPT as an excuse to attack another nation is as bad as attacking a nation because you think they have weapons of mass destruction.

OmCheeto,

That's about as ill-considered as saying that one shouldn't use the fact that someone broke the law
and committed a serious felony as as "excuse" for imprisoning them and depriving them of their
freedom.

Just as with individual offenders - sometimes entire nations engage in lawless activities. When that
happens - it may be completely necessary to attack and defeat them in order to terminate the lawless
activity. History is repleat with examples.

The NPT isn't being used as "an excuse". As others have said, Iran is VIOLATING international law;
Iran is a CRIMINAL nation for doing so. If Iran is so intrasigent that it refuses to honor its obligations
under international law - then in order to bring Iran into compliance; a military strike may be necessary.

Yes - Iranians will suffer from such an occurence - and when they want to point the finger of blame -
they can look to their OWN government. Iran will DESERVE what happens to it; they brought it
on themselves with their lawless behavior.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Count Iblis]

Morbius, WWII started because after WWI the allies tried to implement nonsensical sanctions against Germany. That fuelled nationalism, allowing the NAZIs to gain power.

 

[Morbius]

But because Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, Iran can simply continue to defy the UNSC. There is no viable military option against Iran.

Count Iblis,

Iran is not much more powerful than Iraq - which is why the Iran / Iraq war lasted so long - it was
a virtual stalemate.

For the US military; Iran would be as big a pushover as Iraq was.

After the Iraqi regime fell in short order to US military forces; the US military stayed in Iraq to
attempt to reconstruct Iraq and maintain order. In that job, US military personnell were subject
to IEDs and other attacks that have claimed many lives.

If circumstances require it; and for the good of world peace; the United Nations decides that Iranian
regime should pay the price for its intrasigence; then the US military forces could obliterate the
Iranian regime as handily as they did the Iraqis.

However, in such a case; perhaps the US shouldn't stay to help "clean up" the mess, which caused
the loss of so many US servicemen and servicewomen.

Perhaps the US military should sweep through Iran like Sherman swept through Georgia and then just
leave and let the Iranians put their house in order without our help.

In such a case, they would be so busy reconstructing their own nation; they won't have time to inflict
terrorist attacks and threats on other nations.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Morbius, WWII started because after WWI the allies tried to implement nonsensical sanctions against Germany. That fuelled nationalism, allowing the NAZIs to gain power.

Count Iblis,

I KNOW my history and how World War II got started.

You say the sanctions were "nonsensical" - and that is as ill-considered and non-factual
as what you've been posting in this thread.

Why are you such an apologist for such EVIL DESPOTS as Hitler and Ahmadinejad?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[russ_watters]

Morbius, WWII started because after WWI the allies tried to implement nonsensical sanctions against Germany. That fuelled nationalism, allowing the NAZIs to gain power.

That is not an analagous situation.

 

[Morbius]

The US exerted pressure on the IAEA board of governors (who were just the foreign ministers, not the experts on nuclear energy), gave a presentation full of flawed/misleading intelligence to get Iran rewferred to the UNCS.

Count Iblis,

BALONEY! WRONG WRONG WRONG!

The major force behind Iran being referred to the UNSC was NOT the USA - but the Europeans.

You show your abject IGNORANCE in claiming that the IAEA board lacks the technical expertise.
Although the board members may not be technical people - they are advised by a host of technical
people from MANY countries - NOT just the USA.

I don't know where you get this IMPLAUSIBLE propaganda that the USA is responsible for
all of Iran's trouble and woes in this action.

IRAN is responsible - NOT the USA.

However, I find it typical for the Iranians to blame others for their own shortcomings, and
not taking responsibilities for their own crimes; must be a "cultural thing" because they always
seem to be whining the same thing.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Count Iblis]

a military strike may be necessary.

But that will end in disaster for the West. This whole idea of Iran wanting to produce nuclear weapons to attack israel or to be able to defend itself is fundamentally flawed. What happened was that after the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians shelved their plans for nuclear weapons. They made a calculation and found that investing in conventional missiles would be far more effective from a military/strategic point of view.

So, they started to mass produce missiles, most of them short range missles. If Iraq were ever to attack Iran again, then the Iranians are capable of destroying Baghdad using their missiles (Baghdad is not far from the Iranian border, well within the range of their short range misiles).

Now, it happens to be the case that the major oil installations in the Gulf are also within the range of these type of missiles. Not the long range missiles that can reach Israel that everyone is afraid of, but rather the short range (up to 300 km) solid fueled (can be fired fast) missiles.

So, after a US attack, Iran will simply take out the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. And they will continue to fire missiles at it to prevent them from being repaired. The Israel-Lebanon war, shows that in this type of war the West won't be able to stop the enemy. Hezbollah continued to fire missiles into Israel right until the cease fire.

In this case, as long as the war goes on, there won't be oil flowing to the West, therefore the Western economies will grind to a halt. So, it seems to me that Iran will win the war.

You don't have to count on diplomatic support from Russia in this war. Putin will be very happy if the war concludes with a humiliating cease fire for the West.

 

[russ_watters]

But using non-compliance with the NPT as an excuse to attack another nation is as bad as attacking a nation because you think they have weapons of mass destruction.

If we use it as a reason instead of an excuse, would that be better?

 

[Morbius]

So you are saying America should be attacked for it's non-compliance with the NPT and for breaking the ABM Treaty with Russia??

Art.

Your confusion is due to your own lack of reading comprehension.

I just got done explaining to you that the USA did NOT BREAK the ABM Treaty. What the
USA did in terminating the ABM Treaty was PERFECTLY LEGAL under the terms of
the ABM Treaty.

Unlike the NPT, which is an international treaty administered by the United Nations, the ABM
Treaty was a private Treaty between ONLY TWO nations - the USA and the Soviet Union,
whose successor state is present day Russia. READ Article XV - it says that either side
can terminate the treaty. What is ironic is that this provision was put into the ABM Treaty
at the behest of the Soviet Union; not the USA. The USA didn't need permission from the
United Nations or the Security Council - the ABM Treaty was ONLY between the USA and
Russia.

The ABM Treaty was like a private contract between two individuals; and that contract
contained a termination clause that could be exercised unilaterally by either side. Why
anyone would think that there should be any kind of sanction because the USA invoked
a condition of the ABM Treaty that allows its termination is BEYOND LOGIC.

The USA is also in compliance with the NPT.

The fact that you just "make up" and fabricate abridgments to Treaties really makes it hard
to take you seriously.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicst

 

[russ_watters]

What actions do you think should be taken against the USA for it's non-compliance with the NPT?

The USA is not in violation of the NPT, as per the judgement of the IAEA. And even if it was, that's not what this thread is about - start your own thread about that if you want to discuss it (ie, justify your claim). Such speculation is therefore a diversion from the issue being discussed this thread, intended to derail the thread.

I too wonder why people go to such lengths to defend dictators and terrorists.