Iran steps up nuclear warhead work, Israel media reports (Reuters)

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra

28. The results of analysis of environmental samples taken at FFEP on 15 February 2012 showed the
presence of particles with enrichment levels of up to 27% U-235, which are higher than the level stated in the
DIQ. In a letter dated 4 May 2012, the Agency requested that Iran provide an explanation for the presence of
these particles. In its reply, dated 9 May 2012, Iran indicated that the production of such particles “above the
target value” may happen for technical reasons beyond the operator’s control. The Agency is assessing Iran’s
explanation and has requested further details. On 5 May 2012, the Agency took further environmental
samples from the same location where the particles in question had been found. These samples are currently
being analysed.
Source: IAEA report to UN (pdf)

Every other sample is given by enrichment level and weight, except this one with weight specified as "particles". That tells me the samples were so small as to be insignificant for anything more than propaganda value. Had they specified "1 kg", or "50 g", then it would have raised my suspicions more than just saying "particles".

If I mix orange juice and vodka, then take small enough samples, I can expect to occasionally get a sample that is pure vodka or pure orange juice. It doesn't mean I didn't mix a screwdriver.


Iranian officials maintain that the country would make some concessions if its right to pursue civilian nuclear projects was acknowledged and Western sanctions were lifted.
Source: www.haaretz.com...

Sounds like a little back-and-forth going on. "We'll increase sanctions if you don't stop!" "We'll make things worse if you increase sanctions!"

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


(Didn't have enough room in last post, continues in this one)


If the UN demanded tomorrow that the US open all its nuclear sites and weapons development sites to the UN, how many would suddenly be 'forgotten' because we would consider them none of the UN's business? I'm not arguing that the inspections be stopped, of course, but rather am trying to see the situation from both sides.


Well, I don't see it like that.

The U.S. has actively aided other countries in nuclear weaponry and energy. The whole U.N. is composed by a large part of U.S. efforts, money and political strength.

I think the U.S. has never closed access because it doesn't need to. People either know what the U.S. is capable of, or have access to U.S. technology.

Furthermore, if the IAEA has enough intel and knowledge to inspect and judge nuclear issues, it's because of countries like the U.S. ...

We know the U.S. won't deploy a nuclear weapon that could cause a nuclear war, because it's like damaging your own store. We also know that not other country is going to take the risk of a direct nuclear confrontation, because they know how destructive the U.S. response would be.

We don't know if a country like Iran could give away their nukes, or deploy them in an asymmetric fashion, ending up in a local, but huge mess that could trigger a World War 3.


While it might not be for us, it might well be or them. Speaking as someone from the South, I have no problem understanding the concept of "It's my damn country; I'll do with it as I want!"


Yes, but they signed the NPT, and that brings responsibilities. Responsibilities they are not fulfilling, at least completely.

If they wish to do as they want, just sign out of the NPT, and follow the path of India and Pakistan.

Seems a bit dumb and infantile, but it's true. If they don't wish this pressure and rules on them, just leave the organization. If they are peaceful at heart, then they are free to follow that peace.


Agreed. My conscience at this point in my research is not going pro-Iran or anti-Iran... it's actually going anti-US-and-Israeli-activities-which-caused-this-mess.


I agree. A lot of this is a consequence of wrong policies carried out by mad men in U.S. government, during the 70's and 80's. Hard to judge really, since those were troubled and confusing times, especially under the Cold War curtain. But a lot of things done back then, are surfacing right now.

By the way, if you wish any help making that threat of yours, and you need a counter-point, let me know, I'll be glad to help.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
So what ? Is america the only one allowed to have nukes ?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


So they accidentally enriched uranium to 27%+?

UN Agency: Iran Expanding Nuclear Work - Feb 2012


Iran is rapidly expanding its production of enriched uranium, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in its latest report. The information heightened concern over how soon the Islamic Republic of Iran will have a nuclear weapon at its disposal.

According to the agency, Iran has ramped up its production of higher-grade uranium in the past four months.
The IAEA also claims Iran can't explain or account for some "missing" uranium, enough to use in tests for arming missiles with a nuclear payload.


I agree with the back and forth.. What I dont understand is if Irans program meets all requirements then why are they refusing inspections? They have denied inspectors access to certain sites while also denying them access to scientists etc involved in the program.

I am not a fan of the "if you have nothing to hide then prove it" mentality. However in Irans case, knowing the repercussions of a nuclear bomb in their hands, I truely believe they need to prove their prograqm is on the up and up.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
What I do not understand is the amnt of America hate there is on ATS. America and Israel hate actually. Its like all the posters on ATS are from Qatar or Saudi Arabia but no the majority are from the USA or an ally nation. Yes there are conspiracies. However you all find conspiracies in EVERYTHING. The Aurora shootings, Columbine, the weather. Literally the weather. Its like you don't believe anything bad can happen in the world sans the USA or Israel pulling the strings.

B4 I hear all the troll nonsense Ive been reading ATS for a while. I enjoy it. I like examining possibilities. However, I also see the ridiculousness in assuming everything is a conspiracy and then looking for facts to verify your preconceived notions rather then examining facts using an open mind to draw a reasonable conclusion.

My nation is not perfect and there is a ton that oughta change. However I do believe the USA is a force for good in this world and I believe that the majority of secrets kept from us are to protect national security and the citizens. You look to Ron Paul as not only a possible solution but the ONLY solution. And long after it is beyond clear that he cannot win you continue to suggest voting for him, while suggesting the voting system is corrupt so how could your man win anyway.

To bring it back to the topic I firmly believe a world in which Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapon is a better and safer world. Regardless of the hate and / or jealousy you have for the USA would you prefer Iran be the superpower?
edit on 13-8-2012 by CJStallion because: Spelling.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaanny
How would you feel if you were in a room where every person had a gun but you.

Would you not want to procure a gun?

Now replace the gun variable with nuclear weapons.

I cant blame the guy for wanting to have some form of defense from the offensive war that America has been waging for over 10 years.


I see America, Israel and Iran like three psychotic mass murderers. When two have access to guns (Nukes), the third will invariably want it to.

It's in the best interests of the rest of the community to take all three psychos out.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 


Iranians paint themselves as victims? Really? Not if you ask me, but if you did ask me who paints themselves as victims I would say Israel.

Yes, Iran is blamed by the same people who want to go war with them that Iran is funding terrorist attacks, mostly against Israel, but if you think Israel isn't doing the same you should do some more reading into the matter.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra

Satellite images suggest Iran cleaning up evidence of nuclear weapons work

Some further excerpts:

That IAEA report said more information had been obtained that linked the site to possible past high explosive tests, which it stated in November 2011 would be "strong indicators of possible [nuclear] weapon development."

Now exactly where did this come from? Do they think Iran is exploding nukes in their own facility? I know of no reason high-explosive tests would correlate to nuclear weaponry ambitions... exploding a test nuke would level a section of their own country and be totally unmistakable.


Iranian officials at the time dismissed the claims of an attempted clean-up as a "joke." Experts say any past use of nuclear material there would be virtually impossible to hide from IAEA inspectors.

And the experts are correct. Radiation is not something that can be washed off. Even radiation decontamination does not remove all radiation; it reduces it to safe(r) levels. Especially weapons-grade enrichment would be impossible to wipe away all traces of within the span of months.

It is bobbles like this that continually make me suspicious of the claims. They are obviously either targeted at frightening those with limited knowledge of nuclear technology, or indicative of a level of incompetence that boggles the mind and makes me worry more about the inspectors than about Iran.

I will keep looking for those photos (hopefully they are online), but the article raises my suspicions of the story being false, rather than alleviates them.


Devils advocate - Can you show me in UN resolutions on Iran, in the NPT or the IAEA information where it states a nation may comply based on percentages?

No.

But I will stand by my position that, if taken to the ultimate level, the regulations can be so tight that 100% compliance can be made virtually impossible or at least extremely difficult.


Germany is the same... Political goals not religious ones.

Forgive me, but I do believe Hitler had religious goals as well as political.

And in any case, both are ideals that can be used to incite a population to support aggressive activity. Religion may be one of the more powerful ideals, but remember that the religion in Iran at this time, as evidenced by Khamenei's fatwa, is that nuclear weaponry is illegal per their religion.


When we used nuclear weapons on Japan the goal was to end the war.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons their goal will be to end the existance of a country / religion, not a conflict.

You may have me confused with someone else.

The nukes deployed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII were a necessary evil that was required in order to prevent more deaths. I have no issue with our actions in that arena. But we do not know what the intentions of Iran would be, even if they had nuclear weaponry. We have their statements, some of which do seem to indicate a desire to remove the nation of Israel from existence. But never to my knowledge have they said they would use nuclear weaponry to do this. I am finding evidence that Iran is not of the same mindset as Al-Quaidi or the Taliban; either of those I would have a problem with even without the nuclear component. But Iran seems to be, though arrogant, stubborn, and indignant, more reasoned than the aforementioned groups. Since a nuke that would destroy Israel would also create a lifeless expanse throughout Iraq and Iran in its wake, I doubt a reasoned people, even though they be religious, would consider such an option.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
I'm not too happy at the thought of a Islamic religious extremists possessing Nuclear weapons.

Its not too difficult to understand why Israel is not too keen on the idea.


edit on 12-8-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


You are not happy because you labelled them as "Islamic Religious Extremist", but if you labeled them as "Zionist Colonialists" then that wouldn't stir your emotions right?

Considering the fact that Zionists have nuclear weapons, and the fact that its "DAD" USA has already used one against civilian population, shouldn't you be more concerned about that?

Considering the fact that there is no evidence which supports the idea of Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons, being concerned about Iran in that sens, is like being concerned about Australia, or Germany, or Canada. Am I right?

Considering the fact that US is proliferating Nuclear Weapons, while Israel is refusing to sign the NPT treaty, while Iran has already signed it, wouldn't it be more logical to be more concerned about US and Israel, maybe Pakistan and India also?

Wait, never mind, concerned are derived from the media, if the media says it is something you should be concerned about, based on parroted claims by deceptive politicians, then so be it, be concerned, but I hope your concerns serve you and your people positively. I heard US is seeking loans?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apleness
So what ? Is america the only one allowed to have nukes ?


No, America is the only one allowed to use them and to spread them. US has planted its nukes all across the world, including in Turkey, this is proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, maybe that explains why India refused to join a retarded Treaty such as the NPT.

Iran is in a loose loose situation, if she didn't join the NPT, she would be targeted, and even when she did join the NPT still she is targeted.

In the other hand, Israel building Nuclear Weapons, and refusing to allow inspectors, or signing the NPT has been receiving no outrage, obviously because the bulk of Western media are controlled by Zionists (too much evidence to back it up).

That being said, let's not forget who brought Israel's nuclear weapons to our attention, it was Mordechai Vanunu, who was drugged and abducted by Mossad in Italy, then taken to Israel where he was locked up for 18 years. Why? Because he spoke to the press about Israel's nuclear weapons.

Obviously people are more concerned about Iran because of the media, but because of facts, we should beyond doubt be 100X more concerned about US and Israel.

Their behavior and history speaks for itself, dangerous and genocidal regimes rule both nations. Let's not forget how many countries US has attacked in the past decade, and how many times Israel has attacked defenseless people, not to mention their colonialist expansionist behavior which will certainly force them to use Nuclear Weapons sooner or later.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
 


They are conditioning the western world to accept this war. East v West, one religion against the other.
Its crazy to see so many people are buying this #, The US created the war on terror. They use this stupid propaganda to convince people that bombing Iran is in our best interests.

ITS NOT

wake the masses up and hang those responsible for the war on terror and those who push this one world agenda.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Couldn't have framed it better myself.

A few points:

The chief method supporters of Iran use is to ignore the reality of Islamism, not simply in institutionalized form in Iran, but period, anywhere it manifests, in whatever form, the defenders of America's opponents ignore the nature of the parties they defend.

Yet another major concern - besides Iran - confronting the Israeli state is the election to office of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Now, the peace treaty is pretty much moot; it'll take the littlest provocation for Egypt to find it's pretext to scrap the treaty and attack or collaborate in an attack against Israel.

Israels situation is frankly intolerable. You have Iran - the de facto financial and military sponsor of Hezbollah - threatening to annihilate Israel, then you have the situation between Israel and Syria (Syria hinted a few weeks back at having biological weapons, warning that they wouldn't be used against it's civilians but against 'foreign invaders' a clear reference to Israel and the golan heights); then you have Turkey, who since voting in it's own islamist regime has grown more malevolent towards Israel (for instance sponsoring the flotilla episode), and now Israel has once again reason to worry about a possible military confrontation against it's seasoned foe Egypt.

And in almost every case, they are innocent. A bloc has formed against them, mostly made up of Islamist and socialists - both desiring societal reform - but ironically, in entirely different directions, but both seem to see in Israel a common enemy. And poor Israel, trying to stay afloat, doing everything within it's power to balance the interests of it's safety with the exaggerated humanitarian over the Palestinians, and seemingly everything it does turns around to bite them in the ass; it's enemies have hatched a catch 22 for them which they cannot escape. Minus America's support - which is both moral and strategic - Israel is in a pathetically (in the eyes of it's enemies) difficult situation.

War is seemingly inevitable.
edit on 13-8-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

I'm not too happy at the thought of a Islamic religious extremists possessing Nuclear weapons.

Its not too difficult to understand why Israel is not too keen on the idea.


For someone with a wise Orwell quote for their signature, I would think you'd have a little more of a skeptical attitude towards this issue. Iran gains NOTHING from having nukes, besides their own assured destruction. There's no way in the seven hells that Iran could successfully nuke another country. Not unless they were allowed to. The Mossad and CIA/ETC have the technology and intelligence to stop that from happening. And if they don't, then perhaps we should start asking the question, where are all these trillions of dollars going if not into national defense and the War Machine?

The U.S. and Israel, on the other hand, if they can convince the world that Iran has an armory of nuclear warheads like they convinced us Iraq had WMDs, then they "win" this age-old struggle over Iran's land in one fell swoop and finally dominate the middle-east, which has been their long-term goal for decades. Iran's long-term goal has been survival for decades, not domination. I'm not going to get into the muslim vs jew debate because quite frankly it's f#cking ridiculous and both sides are as stupid as each other, but at the end of the day, Israel is trying to conquer more land, not protect the world. I don't want a nuclear war any more than you or anyone else on here does, but I also am not going to fall for the country who cried wolf for the upteenth time.

I'm not suggesting it's impossible that Iran has nukes. But I am suggesting it's possible Israel and the US are lying, like usual. We have no evidence that Iran has nukes. But we have plenty of evidence that Israel and US cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Where does that leave us? I don't want any more innocent blood on my hands, personally. I'm tired of being sucked into bullsh#t wars by our leaders for no good reason.

Now, if the US or Israel can provide evidence that Iran has nukes, without hearsay or rubbish propaganda, then maybe I'll change my opinion on the matter. The fact is, Iran is a far inferior country to the US and Israel technologically and intelligence-wise, and if we cannot prove beyond doubt that Iran have nukes, then chances are, like Iraq, they do not. No one can hide anything from the West anymore, and a nuclear warhead is quite a difficult thing to hide at the best of times.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now exactly where did this come from? Do they think Iran is exploding nukes in their own facility? I know of no reason high-explosive tests would correlate to nuclear weaponry ambitions... exploding a test nuke would level a section of their own country and be totally unmistakable.

Higher enrichment levels are just one facet of a nuclear weapon. The ability to explode a nuclear weapon relies on the detonation technique, which must be perfected before a bomb is feasible.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
And the experts are correct. Radiation is not something that can be washed off. Even radiation decontamination does not remove all radiation; it reduces it to safe(r) levels. Especially weapons-grade enrichment would be impossible to wipe away all traces of within the span of months.

Whats more is this is not the first time Iran has done this. Research their porogram and you will find several occasions where they have denied entrance to locations only to remove items and soil before allowing an inspection to occur.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
It is bobbles like this that continually make me suspicious of the claims. They are obviously either targeted at frightening those with limited knowledge of nuclear technology, or indicative of a level of incompetence that boggles the mind and makes me worry more about the inspectors than about Iran.

I will keep looking for those photos (hopefully they are online), but the article raises my suspicions of the story being false, rather than alleviates them.

This goes back to my comments about their free media.. Iran does not have to convince the world, they just need to control what their people read. There are satellite images available that shows the clean up and the sites.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
No.

But I will stand by my position that, if taken to the ultimate level, the regulations can be so tight that 100% compliance can be made virtually impossible or at least extremely difficult.

Tkae some time and read the requirements then explain to me how they are hard to follow. The requirements are disclosure and inspections. Notification when new facilities are to be built. Pretty simple and straight forward.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Forgive me, but I do believe Hitler had religious goals as well as political.

Nope - his goals were political. The people around him, like Himler, used the mystique of religion - ancient warriors, to further their goal. In the end religion was subservient to the state. Iran is the reverse.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
And in any case, both are ideals that can be used to incite a population to support aggressive activity. Religion may be one of the more powerful ideals, but remember that the religion in Iran at this time, as evidenced by Khamenei's fatwa, is that nuclear weaponry is illegal per their religion.

Dont forget that Islam allows for lies to be told to their enemies.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
You may have me confused with someone else.

The nukes deployed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII were a necessary evil that was required in order to prevent more deaths. I have no issue with our actions in that arena. But we do not know what the intentions of Iran would be, even if they had nuclear weaponry. We have their statements, some of which do seem to indicate a desire to remove the nation of Israel from existence. But never to my knowledge have they said they would use nuclear weaponry to do this. I am finding evidence that Iran is not of the same mindset as Al-Quaidi or the Taliban; either of those I would have a problem with even without the nuclear component. But Iran seems to be, though arrogant, stubborn, and indignant, more reasoned than the aforementioned groups. Since a nuke that would destroy Israel would also create a lifeless expanse throughout Iraq and Iran in its wake, I doubt a reasoned people, even though they be religious, would consider such an option.

TheRedneck

Fair enough... If your existence is constantly threatened do you need to wait for the attack to come?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by insaan
Considering the fact that Zionists have nuclear weapons, and the fact that its "DAD" USA has already used one against civilian population, shouldn't you be more concerned about that?

There is no proof Israel has nuclear weapons. If you are going to rely on intelligence reports to support that position then the exact same holds for Iran and the reports on their nuclear program.



Originally posted by insaan
Considering the fact that there is no evidence which supports the idea of Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons, being concerned about Iran in that sens, is like being concerned about Australia, or Germany, or Canada. Am I right?

Not completely.. Nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons Iran has made their intentions towards Israel clear. Do they have to wiat to be attacked before defending themselves? Dont forget Hamas and Hezzbullah are supported by Iran and are their proxy.



Originally posted by insaan
Considering the fact that US is proliferating Nuclear Weapons, while Israel is refusing to sign the NPT treaty, while Iran has already signed it, wouldn't it be more logical to be more concerned about US and Israel, maybe Pakistan and India also?

Iran is free to withdraw from the NPT / IAEA at any point they choose. If they have no intentions of complying with it, then why bother to sign the treaty? India, Pakistan, North Korea - they are not signatories.



Originally posted by insaan
Wait, never mind, concerned are derived from the media, if the media says it is something you should be concerned about, based on parroted claims by deceptive politicians, then so be it, be concerned, but I hope your concerns serve you and your people positively. I heard US is seeking loans?

Deceptive politicians? Thats not limitied to the United states. Iran has their fair share of the same only theirs is mixed with religion as well.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The reason behind the hasty and massive cleanup in 'Parchin' site, is because it is an immediate and undeniable smoking gun.
Testing high explosives for a nuclear trigger can only mean one thing and for one application only – a nuclear bomb.





posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 



Iranians paint themselves as victims? Really? Not if you ask me, but if you did ask me who paints themselves as victims I would say Israel.


Yes, they do. If you read PressTv, you will notice a pattern of 'we are being attacked by the west, and the zionists' and that sort of speech.

I'm not saying they don't have reasons to do it. However, I do think they try to portray as innocent victims of accusations. If they are really innocent victims or liars, history will tell.

But yes, Israel does use the victim card. To the point it gets annoying. They should know better.


Yes, Iran is blamed by the same people who want to go war with them that Iran is funding terrorist attacks, mostly against Israel, but if you think Israel isn't doing the same you should do some more reading into the matter.


It's a fact that Iran has supplied and funded attacks on other countries through proxies. That's the beauty of using proxies, you can't be directly responsible for something. Only the people inside those circles know about it, and it's a very dirty game.

And I'm not saying Iran is the only one doing it either. For all I know, Mossad does exactly the same thing. But like it was mentioned several times in this thread, it's all about finding out which are the real intentions.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SheepGObaa
 



They are conditioning the western world to accept this war. East v West, one religion against the other.


They don't need conditioning. People think badly of each-other on their own, especially regarding cultures they don't understand.

Every time someone makes that argument I can't help but to recall a Jay Leno episode where he was asking who should be attacked next, while asking people to point at a map, and a surprising number of people said "Iran" and "North Korea".

This was several years ago.


Its crazy to see so many people are buying this #, The US created the war on terror. They use this stupid propaganda to convince people that bombing Iran is in our best interests.


People buy into whatever is presented to them, generally speaking. We should question everything, but question too much and you loose the grip of reality, or at least, acceptable reality. What is and isn't stops to make sense. Question too little and you become a mindless fool.

The proper stand is finding that sweetspot in the middle. Where you are aware of the thing's that surround you, and still able to question and doubt.

I don't have the stand I have today because I'm being fed information. There was actually a time where I thought this was just mindless fear propaganda. But guess what, after reading tons of material, and keeping up with the news everyday (from both sides), I changed my mind...

As much as I want to believe this is all a lie, my gut tells me it isn't. The same way your gut will tell you if someone is guilty or innocent of a murder or robbery. I've weighted all sides, and came to a conclusion. A conclusion that will be confirmed or refuted afterwards.

I wish this was a lie, mostly because it would be easier to put a cork in Israel's mouth and tell them to stop the fearmongering, than to really face Iran and possibly going into, yet another, military confrontation that could drift out of control.

But just look at the debate in this thread. Educated, different-opinion people can't reach a consensus without having access to whatever classified intel exists. That's how complicated this is, and how unsure we all are.
edit on 14-8-2012 by GarrusVasNormandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra

Higher enrichment levels are just one facet of a nuclear weapon.

Yes, they are. And since it appears we are sliding into misinformation on the process, let me summarize exactly what is required. First of all, there are two basic types of nuclear weapons: the gun-type and the implosion-type. There are also two major types of fuel: uranium-235 and plutonium-239.

Uranium-235 is typically found in nature as an impurity in the more common uranium isotope U-238. Natural concentrations of U-235 are less than 1%, so enrichment is required to concentrate the U-235. A nuclear power plant uses 3-5% concentration. Research reactors, used in medical research, require higher levels up to 20%. Anything up to 20% enrichment is considered non-weapons-usable LEU (Lightly Enriched Uranium). A nuclear weapon typically uses 85-90% enrichment, although a crude weapon could be build with 20+% enrichment. Lower enrichment, however, requires a greater critical mass.

Plutonium-239 is more unstable and used as well in nuclear weaponry, typically as a primary charge to set off U-235. It can be synthesized from U-238 through a process of neutron bombardment, and decays to U-235. This decay chain is what makes it so good as a primary charge, since the decay product is the same material as the secondary (main) charge.

Plutonium-239 is typically used in an implosion device, which requires EBW detonators to obtain the necessary timing between charges. Iran has EBW detonators. However, I have seen no indication that Iran is synthesizing plutonium-239. If attempting to use the gun-type weapon, a high explosive is needed to force two subcritical masses of enriched uranium together to form a critical mass. EBW detonators are not needed in this case, but uranium metal is needed. There is no indication Iran has produced anything more then UO2 or UF6 pellets.

So, if using a gun-type design, where is the metallic U-235? If using the implosion type design,where is the plutonium? Either way, Iran is missing critical components of a nuclear weapon. Everything found in Iran has multiple uses beyond nuclear weaponry. A more critical examination of the situation would appear to me to indicate a likelihood of a conventional weaponry buildup: evidence of chemical explosive tests, missile delivery systems, detonators... but no fuel that is compatible with these devices on a nuclear scale.

A map of Iran at this time needs no lines to define its borders; one could see them simply from the locations of US bases! If that were me, I would be getting ready to repel an attack as well. And if I were getting ready to repel an anticipated attack, the last thing I would allow would be uncontrolled access to my weapons! Nuclear weaponry could not be hidden from detection from inspectors who knew what to look for; radioactive signatures in the environment are simply too easy to spot and impossible to completely eradicate. Conventional weapons could be concealed, but only by prohibiting direct access.

Look at the situation from an outside perspective for a moment:

A country with close ties to a hostile country has just invaded two neighboring states, has military bases placed around your borders, is implementing sanctions against you through a puppet organization, is threatening to increase those sanctions, has already sent potential weaponry (drones) into your country, and is demanding access to every weapons facility in your country... while the hostile neighbor threatens to bomb you!

If a cop who had just illegally raided two of your neighbors, and was close friends with a third neighbor who hated you and constantly threatened to shoot you, were to stay parked outside your house, get caught taking pictures of you, had the police department stop and search all deliveries to your house and threaten to increase that practice, then demanded full access to your property because he saw you have a gun and is claiming you are making grenades... would you feel like complying?

I'd be buying guns and ammo until the credit cards melted.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitational

That diagram is of an implosion-type device. It uses EBW detonators, not a high-explosive charge, for detonation.

It also requires plutonium-239, which there are no reports of in Iran. Please read the post just above.

TheRedneck





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join