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

News When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?

  1. Jul 27, 2008 #1
    When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?
    i think they are using a big centrifuges...

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  4. Jul 27, 2008 #3
    Re: Iran

    Who cares when it will have the bomb? Countries like Pakistan that already have it are in the danger of disintegrating and becoming an Afghanistan. Pakistan is more of a threat than Iran will ever be. Why are people not more concerned with how quickly can we cut dependency on oil so that the world stops enriching Mid-East dictatorships buttressed by oil? Without oil revenues they might be forced to turn instead to contributing to civilization and to improving the lot of their people? When were people questioning radical Islam in Saudi Arabia? When it was poor and did not have oil.
    Why are people so obsessed with Iran? So what if it does have it. A lot of unstable states already have it. Why not focus attention on that fact?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2008
  5. Jul 27, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Iran

    Several reasons. For one thing, Pakistan has had nukes for 3 decades now and hasn't used them yet (thanks, in part, to a MAD-like situation with India). So it's the known evil vs. the unknown evil. Second, Pakistan is an ally (at least on paper) while Iran isn't. And conversely, Israel is a much closer political ally (or better stated, there are much more powerful groups lobbying for Israel in the US Govt) to the US than India is.

    Only recently, we heard again from the single person most responsible for nuclear proliferation anywhere in the world: Pakistan's Nuclear Head, A. Q. Khan, now sentenced to house arrest for his crimes. He told the media that shipments of centrifuges to Pyongyang happened under the guidance of the Military (lead by Musharraf). While this has been an obvious truth to most people, it should be something of an embarrassment to the US (but would be only if the press and the people gave a damn). After all, Musharraf has been trying to paint AQK as a renegade bad apple, and has claimed that his Military govt. knew nothing about any proliferation activities. The US has continued to have a good relationship with Musharraf, because it could always assert that he was not involved in the proliferation. Anyway, Khan will not be saying anything more - he has been banned by the Pakistan High Court from talking about any of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activity. Hooray!

    And now, the US is upgrading a handful of F-16s for Pakistan, and that's coming out of the US counter-terrorism budget, but the argument is that it is supposedly to help Pakistan better fight al Qaeda (yes, with better avionics on their F-16s). What a load of hooey! Pakistan almost never resorts to airstrikes!

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104ap_pakistan_nuclear_scientist.html [Broken]
    http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-24-voa48.cfm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  6. Jul 27, 2008 #5
    Re: Iran

    I'm sorry Gokul, but I don't see any good reason against Iran here. Hasn't Iran respected all legal international treaties it has ratified ?
  7. Jul 27, 2008 #6
    Re: Iran

    No, the IAEA has several times ruled that Iran has violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the UN Security council has imposed sanctions upon Iran for its violations. The United States and the European Union continue to push for stricter sanctions on Iran, which is currently being blocked by the Chinese government, who need Iranian oil to fuel their developing industrial base and maintain their totalitarian government. Russia also continues to be an obstacle in pursuing further action through the UN Security council.

    The only consolation is that Iran is almost sixty years behind the United States and Russia in missile technology, and even if they had enough uranium for a bomb, it is unlikely that they would have the technology to deliver it in the next ten years, and probably a lot longer than that.
  8. Jul 27, 2008 #7
    Re: Iran

    I am right now on the IAEA web site. I don't find any document supporting your claims. I am specifically referring to violation by Iran of any international treaty it has ratified. Can you please point me out just one ? I'll keep searching in the meantime.
  9. Jul 27, 2008 #8
    Re: Iran

    U.S. likes to ignore clear and present danger (Pakistan) and likes to focus elsewhere (Iran--can it be dangerous? I do not have enough knowledge about politics there to have an opinion).
    In the case of Pakistan, I do know it gets propped up by the Arab funds and U.S. aid whenever it is falling apart. But how can people ask the Pakistanis to crack down on their own people who they would otherwise support were they not forced by the international community to address the terrorist issue? This seems to be the question. People can't change their culture that fast and this is why U.S. aid will not help to make the situation any better there in terms of Pakistan cracking down on terror. It is just a situation that is going in circles. This Iran obsession just shows how the real issues get ignored.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2008
  10. Jul 27, 2008 #9
  11. Jul 27, 2008 #10
    Re: Iran

    The IAEA found that Iran had repeatedly violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.


    Refusal to suspend the refinement of weapons-grade Uranium, to allow full access and cooperation to inspectors, and to, in general, comply with the letter and intent of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty led to several security council resolutions against Iran.

    UNITED NATIONS — The Security Council on Monday adopted its third resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for its refusal to cease enriching uranium, an activity that the West suspects Iran may be using to create fuel for a nuclear weapon.


    PARIS — The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

    The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation.

  12. Jul 27, 2008 #11
    Re: Iran

    Iran has ratified the NPT, and then gone on to violate it. Not that a history of not violating ratified treaties would disqualify Iran as a threat/problem/whatever. They continue to refuse to recognize a certain country in the region, while pumping money and arms into the hands of groups dedicated to the violent destabilization of that country and its neighbors.
  13. Jul 27, 2008 #12
    Re: Iran

    Anything I read sums up to : "the West suspects Iran may be using to create fuel for a nuclear weapon.". That's no violation of any treaty to me. From what I gather of the documents you provide...

    "pledge from the six countries to establish full relations and economic cooperation with Iran", "willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations", those are no accusation of violation of any treaty.

    Look, I'm not a native english speaker but here is your own reference :
    "Between the indications of weapons work, which would constitute a violation of Iran’s treaty obligations and Iran’s blatant violations of Security Council resolutions, there is strong reason for Iran’s file to remain open both in New York and in Vienna.”

    "That means that the country may be producing enriched uranium"

    Now, can you tell the difference ? They have nothing, it's as simple...
  14. Jul 27, 2008 #13
    Re: Iran

    Iran is producing enriched uranium. This is a known fact. They have a multitude of gas-centrifuges, some of which have been tested to contain weapons-grade uranium.

    The issue with the IAEA and the UN Security Council is not simply the matter of Iran producing Uranium (which is a huge concern in and of itself), but that they refuse to meet their obligations to allow IAEA inspectors full access in order to show that their uranium enrichment is not in violation of the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

    The United Nations Security council has already issued sanctions against Iran for violating the Nuclear Non Proliferation, and eventually, if Iran continues its obstinate stonewalling, the IAEA will have no choice but to declare that Iran is in abeyance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. There are already more serious sanctions being pushed by the US and EU, and if Iran continues to behave as it is, China and Russia will have no choice but to allow those sanctions to be passed.
  15. Jul 27, 2008 #14
    Re: Iran

    Please note that, I asked you when Iran did that, where I could find the information, and I recevied answers that it's obvious, but there is nothing. Just "may"s and "would"s

    Why would IAEA be so nice with Iran, if they had any real proof than they have violated a treaty ? Why would they wait unti whatever ? If there is violation, there is, the violation is officially declared and it's over. Sorry, but you don't convince me a bit.
  16. Jul 27, 2008 #15
    Re: Iran

    Yeah that's pretty hilarious. Musharaf took power by force and harbors terrorists and they are our friend.
  17. Jul 27, 2008 #16
    Re: Iran

    What do you expect the IAEA to do? It's not like it has he capability to do much, except refer the matter to the security council (which it has done) and call on/advise the members of the UN to take notice and act (which it has done, and which THEY have done).

    In short the IAEA has done just about everything that it COULD do!

    Apparently not only the US, but it's bestest of best friends (yes, read the blatant sarcasm) CHINA!!!!, RUSSIA!!!,FRANCE!!! and GERMANY!!! not to mention the U.K. and the rep from the European Union think that Iran has not fulfilled it's obligations.

    The fact that you are *not convinced*, is not surprisingly, not a surprise to me.
  18. Jul 27, 2008 #17
    Re: Iran

    Exactly, that's my point : I read here claims that Iran has violated international treaties, but the truth is, there is no proof of this, just suspicions, therefore, the IAEA has not officially declared they found Iran guilty.
  19. Jul 27, 2008 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Iran

    That isn't true. The citations were presented to you and you just choose to ignore them. Like it or not, the IAEA is charged with deciding whether someone violates the NPT and they decided that Iran has. Heck, Iran has admitted many of the facts that are the violations! Ignoring these facts doesn't make them go away.

    That's even setting aside Gokul's reasons for the political climate against Iran. You may not agree with them, but they are real enough problems that the western world is reasonably well in agreement about the severity of the problem. Iran has repeatedly threatened neighbors with violence. That makes them a bigger threat than Pakistan.

    Quite clearly, you are not willing to be objective here.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2008
  20. Jul 27, 2008 #19
    Re: Iran

    Saying it louder won't make it more sound. I am trying to be objective, as I have read and quoted the references which were pointed to me. You BTW in your first version of your post were pointing me there :
    NPT Iran section on wiki
    I went there, and tried to download the reference [28]UN Security Council Resolution 1737 with two different browsers. I am not responsible for daccessdds.un.org accepting only microsoft products. Please provide the resolution here so that I can read it. I'm ready to change my mind honestly, and appreciate only slightly when you call for my lack of objectivity. I provided the link to the video which raised this question to me. I'm ready to hear any otherwise argument, but have not seen any so far, except for the reference to wikipedia which you deleted.
    Please provide me with the references which will allow me to agree with this statement.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2008
  21. Jul 27, 2008 #20
    Re: Iran

    The wiki article clearly says
    It's the same everywhere. They have nothing but "would"s and "may"s...
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?
  1. Bombing Iran. (Replies: 33)

  2. Iran and nuclear weapons (Replies: 10)