It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Iran plans secret 'nuclear university' to train scientists

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Approval has been granted by the Iranian government to build a secret nuclear research center. The purpose of this center would be to train scientists for nuclear science applications. The faculty of the school would be part of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. The school would be a post graduate finishing school with courses in nuclear engineering and the production of nuclear materials.
 



news.telegraph.co.uk
The Iranian government has given approval for the establishment of a secret nuclear research center to train its scientists in all aspects of atomic technology, The Telegraph can reveal.

Recent reports received by Western intelligence show that Teheran has recently approved the establishment of a faculty of applied nuclear engineering that will be attached to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).

The faculty will provide post-graduate courses for Iranian scientists in nuclear engineering and the production of nuclear materials.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Okay how many still believe the peaceful use of energy claim? Coming on the revelation of the potential acquisition of Ukrainian nuclear capable cruise missiles, there is plenty of danger to be had here. I hope that the negotiation that the EU3 are undertaking and some softening of the Bush Administration's stance will get the Iranians to stop thier enrichment activities. Because if people think this is going to just stop at the borders of Iran, they are sorely mistaken.

Special thanks to Hellmutt for the story tip.




posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   

as posted by FredT
I hope that the negotiation that the EU3 are undertaking and some softening of the Bush Administration's stance will get the Iranians to stop thier enrichment activities.

Hope is always good, FredT.
We should all have 'hope.'
The problem with 'hope' is that it has a problem with current events.
Economic Offers Won't Stop Nuclear Program
U.S. 'Hallucinating' Over Nuclear Talks, Iran Says

But despite these mentions, the EU is still hoping for a settlement to the situation, and in typical European fashion, they are in no hurry. Must be that 'sipping' tea bit or tea time, etc.



The Bush administration has argued that Iran's nuclear activity should be referred to the Security Council, but lacks the votes at the IAEA for the move.

In a key concession to the Europeans, the Bush administration set no deadline for the European negotiations to bear fruit, a decision that was criticized by American conservatives. Instead, Washington left it to the Europeans to set the timetable.

A European official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, defended that decision.

"There is a suspension of enrichment [by Iran] and there is the IAEA in Iran to verify the suspension, so who is in a hurry? The Iranians — to get their carrots and to get rid of the IAEA," the official said. "But we should take the time which is needed to come into a comprehensive agreement."

Bush Softens Stance on Iran

As such, by the time the Iranians are ready to 'wheel and deal', they will have obtained the goal they are continually striving for. Need I say what that goal is? Pretty self-evident to me what it is.
As Evidence Grows Of Iran's Program, U.S. Hits Quandary




seekerof

[edit on 21-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Hope is always good Seekerof,

However, here lies the problem with this whole mess:

1) If they do stop will we ever be able to know for sure if they are or are not enriching uranium in some tunnel in say the Elburz mountain range?

2) If they refuse to stop, what exactly is the UN going to do about it? Russia which has built the reactors has a veto, and China which has wepaons deals as well as long term oil contracts has a veto as well.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
In general, with the advance in nuclear technology as a energy source, nuclear reactors can operate and function without enriched uranium, correct?

If so, then why does Iran need to have uranium enriching facilities, and on top that, why are they moving them [those facilities] underground?

Why the need for a "nuclear university"? Two reasons to me: to train scientist to run nuclear facilities and to train scientist to use enriched uranium for weapons building purposes.

Russia and China are in this for the money. Veto? Sure, why not. I mean OIL was a main motivator behind the veto's given out prior to the second Iraq War, correct?





seekerof

[edit on 21-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
In general, with the advance in nuclear technology as a energy source, nuclear reactors can operate and function without enriched uranium, correct?


I think the fuel does need to be enriched, but can be supplied by Russia or Europe and has been offered already. Part of the reason stated by the Iranians is that they do not want to be held hostage over fuel rods.

However, the other reason is that if they are using the reactors to make plutonium using the reactor flux, that can be calculated by analizing the content of the spent rods. My limited nuclear physics fails me but I belive it has to do with looking at the electron levels etc. Could be off the mark on this though.

No, I find it hard to believe that anybody buys the peacfull intent of the program. If they were interested in electricity production, they would have been all over the free light water reactor that EU offered them. But it does not make other stuff that they might want


What we are seeing here is the failed strategy of multiple administrations (plenty of blame here on both sides) dealing with North Korea. Seeing the kids gloves aproach that the worlds nations are taking with Kim, it is clear that the Iranians feel that nuclear wepaons would give them that same level as well.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Forgive me for taking the easy shot- but isn't it standard proceedure to keep secret nuclear facilities... well... secret? I can only assume that somebody in Iranian counter-intelligence is being decapitated over this.

On to bigger and better things, I am afraid that Iran may become the new North Korea. I am even starting to wonder if it may be because we are unwilling to admit that we are strategically between a rock and a hard place when it comes to invading Iran. We could do it, but we'd would have to all but come out and say "Well, some pipsqueek almost got one by us, so now we've got to have two very expensive wars on an extremely truncated time table with Syria and Iran, and we expect to suffer just under a thousand casualities in this war if all goes well."

Or of course we could nuke Iran, but I don't see that one happening in a big hurry. To bide our time and do this the normal way, treating them like they aren't a threat and walking over them easily in due time, puts us in a bit of a race against the clock with their nuclear program, but that seems to be our plan, if we in fact have a plan, which I must assume we do. I suspect we will hit Syria eventually (we should already be doing it if we actually want to get into Iran in time- I'm not saying I really want that war, I'm just saying that strategically speaking its the thing to do). If Iran sees it coming and has sufficient logistical capabilities they may try to jump into Iraq before we tie in our line of supply (Persian gulf will be shut for a short time while we locate and destroy their missiles), but it is doubtful that will go to far, especially once we have the initative, since our plan will certainly call for opening up a corridor to Iraq and sending reinforcements as necessary right away.
Once that is settled, then we can go after Iran, but in order to make it a clean fight we'll have to be concentrate force better than we did in Iraq, and meet certain logistical challenges, which adds up to a lot more troops, a lot more airwar, and a little bit slower tempo. All told I wouldn't be shocked if it took as long as a year to get into Syria, then between 3 months and another year to get Iran, depending on what Iran does when we hit Syria. If we give them two years- well I hope they're not as close to getting the bomb as some people would claim.

Slow and steady is not winning the race here. The way I see it their are two choices-
1. We resolve that we will not let Iran get nuclear weapons, look at the time table for their program, and plan to be in Tehran kicking their teeth in before that time-table is halfway expired. We have already established from Iraq that Russia, China, France, etc will sit around calling us dirty names and not doing anything about it.
2. We resign ourselves to the fact that they will soon have nuclear weapons, and we pray that Caspar Weinberger was WAY off when he wrote "The Next War". (He projected that Iran would attack the UAE and attempt to regulate oil exports by controlling the straight of Hormuz, as well as blackmail us into withdrawing all of our troops from the middle east. He also believed that they would launch a nuclear weapon at an ally of ours if/when we attacked, and that we would have to nuke them back to destroy their weapons.)

Of course there are tangent courses from those two main outlines. Once we adopt the option of force it would be highly preferable to negotiate Iran's surrender in advance and install American inspectors (on a no-warning shots basis this time- if we can't see it immediately whenever we want, we'll just bomb it.) I'm just saying that IF our government is serious about non-proliferation, and really believes it's a threat, we need to pick a course and persue it to an effective end- peacefully if possible, but with no negotiation of the principle itself.

Even those of us who are less than trustful of the government and not too fond of war should be able to agree that we must be decisive and mean what we say. That's where I'm coming from on this issue- it's not that I just can't wait to see my good friends in uniform go running off on yet another camel hunt.

[edit on 21-3-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
What we are seeing here is the failed strategy of multiple administrations (plenty of blame here on both sides) dealing with North Korea. Seeing the kids gloves aproach that the worlds nations are taking with Kim, it is clear that the Iranians feel that nuclear wepaons would give them that same level as well.


It worked for Pakistan, India, China and Israel, did it not?

Possessing a Nuclear Weapon would probably make them feel much, much safer. Having said that though, what are the legal implications of Iran's nuclear ambitions? Is Iran an signatory on the non-nuclear possession treaty?

If it's not, how can anyone stop them legally? We all live in a world of laws and contracts right?



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
It worked for Pakistan, India, China and Israel, did it not?

Possessing a Nuclear Weapon would probably make them feel much, much safer. Having said that though, what are the legal implications of Iran's nuclear ambitions? Is Iran an signatory on the non-nuclear possession treaty?

If it's not, how can anyone stop them legally? We all live in a world of laws and contracts right?


Forgive me if I'm wrong (I actually suspect that I am) but I seem to remember reading at some point that under the UN Charter, only security council members may have nuclear weapons (or at least only security council members are explicitly allowed to have them.) I'll try to look it up and hopefully edit this momentarily.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Hmm... I've never heard of that.

Even if it were true, it's being ignored.

ie. Pakistan, Israel, India, etc, etc, etc.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Since there has been a reply I am creating a new post instead of editing.

Posession of nuclear weapons is restricted to the permanent members of the security council by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which not all nations are signatory to), not by the UN Charter. en.wikipedia.org...

The ICJ had issued an advisory opinion stating that while nuclear weaons are not explicitly illegal to possess, they are illegal to use outside the bounds of the rules set forth by the UN charter, and may be subject to certain agreements. Possible agreements applying to nuclear weapons include the Hague Conventions regarding chemical weapons, and humanitarian law regarding indiscriminate weapons and/or the targeting of civilians. Furthermore the ICJ's opinion states that there is a binding obligation to negotiate in good faith for the goal of disarmament.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   

from vagabond's source
Three states - India, Pakistan, and Israel - have declined to sign the treaty. All three possess nuclear weapons, which would be prohibited had any of them ratified the treaty. These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.


So not signing the treaty is a way out


But the twist is



North Korea ratified the treaty, but revoked its signature after a dispute with inspectors over inspections of non-declared nuclear facilities. Iran also signed, but as of 2004 is under suspicion of having violated the treaty through an active program to develop nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency is investigating.


So technically, Iran isn't allowed to possess Nuclear Weapons.

Still, seems stupid that all they had to do is not sign the treaty.


[edit on 21-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Just for arguement's sake- it might be legal for Iran to have nukes if they hadn't signed the treaty, but would it be acceptible?

In the world I live in, which apparently is through the looking glass for the UN, we have "rule of law". Rule of course implies enforcement, which as a part of its very spelling and definition includes force. The law where I come from is obligatory- the people get together and decide what everyone's going to do and not do, and they punish people who can't live by that.
The UN has what you might call "suggestion of law". No force, no enforcement, therefore no rules. In the UN's world, you have to promise to obey the law before it applies to you, and even then it is never applied to you if you fail to apply it yourself.

The world operates on force. God is God because he can beat everyone else up, and that pattern pretty much follows all the way down the totem pole till you get to your boss at work, who although he is a girlie-man and can't beat you up physically, can fire you, thereby beating up up and taking away your house. There is no rule anywhere in the world that does not the function on the "I can beat you up" principle.

Following that model, I have to conclude that whatever organization does the best job of enforcing its will on this issue is in charge. Unless Iran actually obtains a nuclear weapon before America attacks them, that makes America the boss I'm afraid. Not because we're special, not because the whole wide world put together couldn't beat us up- just because in this particular situation we're willing to fight and the situation favors us to win.
So there's my way of seeing it- even if it weren't for that signiture, Iran doesn't have any "right" to nukes and probably can't get them. I'm curious what everybody else has to say about the importance of the treaties and such.


Before anybody comes back with the logical answer, that they could beat me up and do whatever they want to me and that's OK- well yes, you're right, except for two things: 1. We live under a government, which rules by force to stop that. 2. Your ability to impose your will on me is a double edged sword- if I'm willing to shoot you- and I am- there's a good chance you wont get your way with me.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Well... Monkey see monkey do.

Iran looks at India, hmmm....

Iran looks at Pakistan, hmmm......

Iran looks at Israel, @#$!!!!!@!!

So far, none of those countries have being punished by any sort of lasting punishment.


Sep

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Back to the topic, building this university is a very good strategy on the part of the Iranians. By building this university they give themselves the oppertunity to go underground if the current installations are attacked.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
Back to the topic, building this university is a very good strategy on the part of the Iranians. By building this university they give themselves the oppertunity to go underground if the current installations are attacked.


The ultimate irony would be if Israel nuked them.



(DISCLAIMER: I do not condone the use of nuclear weapons, or force on another country. Please do not flame me.)



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Well it isn't exactley secret, not now anyway. Training people to be able to, in the future, build and run reactors is blatant common sense is it not.


Originally posted by Seekerof
In general, with the advance in nuclear technology as a energy source, nuclear reactors can operate and function without enriched uranium, correct?


No not correct. The vast majority of nuclear reactors around the world need enriched Uranium, very few can use none enriched. Iran's reactors are the same.


In light-water-moderated reactors that are used by the U.S. nuclear power industry, enrichment is required because natural uranium's content of the fissile uranium-235 isotope (0.7%) is too low to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. The enrichment process boosts the concentration of uranium-235 to between 3.5% and 4.5%.


www.llnl.gov...

There are obvious benefits from using enriched Uranium, which is why the vast majority do.



If so, then why does Iran need to have uranium enriching facilities, and on top that, why are they moving them [those facilities] underground?


Again an obvious answer, if Israel and America did not continue to suggest military attacks they would not need to. Surely, this response was expected, it is the same as any country would respond. Those countries have shot themselves in the foot as it were.



Why the need for a "nuclear university"? Two reasons to me: to train scientist to run nuclear facilities and to train scientist to use enriched uranium for weapons building purposes.


I answered the first question at the top of my post. There would be little point in having nuclear facilities if no-one could use them and no-one understood how to maintain and build future plants. There is absolutley no reason to say, from what we know, that weapon experts will be trained. The main fuel used for weapons is Plutonium, which can be gotton after the Uranium is spent. These spent fuel rods are however to be given to the Russians for reprocessing.



Russia and China are in this for the money. Veto? Sure, why not. I mean OIL was a main motivator behind the veto's given out prior to the second Iraq War, correct?


Sorry, do not see the relevance here. Name one country that does not do things primarily for money.

I am sure everyone here is aware of the multi billion gas pipe line that is to run from Iran to Pakisatan and to India, thus baking the idea of Iran exporting more of it's natural resourses. This will also increase friendship between the countries as it is going to save them a significant amount of money.


"Iran's peaceful nuclear activities are completely non-military.

To this, the Islamic Republic did its best to remove certain concerns and has cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) very transparently," Asefi added in reaction to an interview by the leaders of France, Germany and Russia on Iran.

"The IAEA has always announced that Iran's activities have not violated peaceful purposes.

"We agree with the three countries that no state should be deprived from peaceful nuclear technology," he said.


www.irna.ir...

So Fred, in answer to your question yes I still believe it is for peaceful purposes. As of yet there is NO evidence of Iran doing anything underhand. In the recent couple of years Iran has become more friendly with the above mentioned countries and thanks to the Iranian investment in the highway linking the two countries, Afganistan.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
The main fuel used for weapons is Plutonium, which can be gotton after the Uranium is spent. These spent fuel rods are however to be given to the Russians for reprocessing.


I was under the impression that this is exactly the problem. Iran refuses to give up its heavy water reactors, which unlike light water reactors can be used as "breeders" to enrich other nuclear material in a fairly efficient manner.
en.wikipedia.org...

wikipediaUnlike a PWR, an FBR can in theory produce weapons grade material.

PWR meaning Pressurized Water Reactor (light water) and FBR meaning Fast Breeder Reactor, a definition which encompasses heavy water reactors, although advanced heavy water plants such as CANDU can be engineered to produce non-fissile isotopes instead.

If I understand the wikipedia articles correctly, Iran could actually breed Thorium into fissile U-233 for weapons use with this reactor. The availability of Thorium is three times greater than Uranium, making this a significant concern.





Russia and China are in this for the money. Veto? Sure, why not. I mean OIL was a main motivator behind the veto's given out prior to the second Iraq War, correct?

Sorry, do not see the relevance here. Name one country that does not do things primarily for money.


I think the relevance is quite clear. The purpose of the UN Security Council is to preserve international peace and security- period. Nations may represent their own interests in the General Assembly, but membership on the security council is a position of trust which a nation is given by its peers in the international community- not a birthright to a hand full of regional hegemon. To make profit-oriented decisions on the security council is abusive.



So Fred, in answer to your question yes I still believe it is for peaceful purposes. As of yet there is NO evidence of Iran doing anything underhand.


I have to respectfully disagree. Like Saddam and Crazy Kim, Iran denies the obvious while they equip themselves to break the rules, gambling that nobody will attack them until it is too late. There is no reason what so ever for Iran to so vehemently oppose light water reactors in lieu of heavy water, especially when that compromise could carry substantial political and economic incentives, unless they plan to use the obvious loop-hole to the fuel-rod return arrangement to enrich other nuclear material.

Edit: typo

[edit on 21-3-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28...what are the legal implications of Iran's nuclear ambitions? Is Iran an signatory on the non-nuclear possession treaty?

If it's not, how can anyone stop them legally? We all live in a world of laws and contracts right?


They are a signatory but as far as I know, the NPT does not prohibit Uranium Enrichment.

If they were interested in building a nuclear bomb, it seems they could do it without enriched Uranium.



www.ieer.org...
All five nuclear weapons states that are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) – the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China – have uranium enrichment plants that have been used to create HEU for weapons. All five of these countries also have uranium enrichment facilities that have been used for producing LEU for commercial power reactor fuel. Pakistan, one of the countries known to have produced nuclear weapons outside the NPT regime, has facilities that have enriched HEU for military applications. India and Israel on the other hand have produced nuclear bombs from plutonium-239 (which is made in nuclear reactors when the non-fissile U-238 captures a low energy neutron).



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

as posted by AceOfBase
If they were interested in building a nuclear bomb, it seems they could do it without enriched Uranium.



There is no "if" here.
Apparently, Iran has chosen the enriched uranium route? Might be why they are enriching uranium? Why they are moving their enriching facility(s) under ground?


The myth of the peaceful atom





seekerof

[edit on 21-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by AceOfBase
If they were interested in building a nuclear bomb, it seems they could do it without enriched Uranium.



There is no "if" here.
Apparently, Iran has chosen the enriched uranium route? Might be why they are enriching uranium? Why they are moving their enriching facility(s) under ground?


The myth of the peaceful atom





seekerof

[edit on 21-3-2005 by Seekerof]


Seeker is correct, there is no "if".

Iran are not trying to build a bomb.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join