Iran's Nuclear Program

[Airbrush]

I think the argument is, correct me if i'm wrong, most world powers don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. Iran argues they don't want a bomb, they just want nuclear-electric power. However, most Iranians believe that Iran has just as much right to a nuclear bomb as any other world power, for self defense. But the Supreme Leader has stated that they don't want a nuke bomb and they believe nuclear weapons are bad inherently. (Maybe not considered Islamic?) But his religion says it is ok to lie to infidels about such matters. So all Iranians understand that the outside world should not trust the ayatolla's word.

 

If they say they don't want a nuke bomb, they should not have a problem with allowing international inspectors to be able to assure the world that Iran is NOT making a bomb. Is that too much to ask of Iran? Does Iran deny they support terrorist organizations that most nations believe would not hesitate to destroy an entire city, anywhere on Earth?

 

Is a deal possible? Will Israel or the US need to bomb Iran?

 

If a city mysteriously gets destroyed by a nuclear bomb, is it likely that the perpetrator may never be known with any certainty?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Airbrush

[pavelcherepan]

I think the argument is, correct me if i'm wrong, most world powers don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb.

 

Most of countries that already have nuclear weaponry don't want anyone else to have it too. But so far it's been already Israel, South African Republic, India, China, Pakistan and North Korea who all have developed nuclear weapons on their own and so it's pretty hard to stop a country that has technical capabilities from developing it. One thing we can say for sure - Israel will most certainly start a war if there's even a remote chance Iran might be getting close to having nuclear weapons.

 

However, most Iranians believe that Iran has just as much right to a nuclear bomb as any other world power, for self defense.

 

And that makes sense with Israel next door having nuclear weaponry in unknown amounts.

 

Maybe not considered Islamic?

 

Somehow I doubt it.

 

 

If they say they don't want a nuke bomb, they should not have a problem with allowing international inspectors to be able to assure the world that Iran is NOT making a bomb.

 

In a very unstable region Middle East is it would be pretty stupid of them, even if they aren't developing any weaponry, to let foreign inspectors get a look at every single secret facility. It's just a matter of national security.

 

 

Is that too much to ask of Iran?

 

If there's no solid evidence that they're currently working on nuclear weapons, I'd consider that bullying.

 

 

Will Israel or the US need to bomb Iran?

 

I hope not. To the US currently Iran is a potential semi-ally in fight against ISIS.

 

 

Does Iran deny they support terrorist organizations that most nations believe would not hesitate to destroy an entire city, anywhere on Earth?

 

Which one are you referring to?

[waitforufo]

Perhaps Iran should be considered different from others with regard to nukes. I don't recall the US calling for the death of Iran, but Iran never misses the opportunity to call for the death of America. Also I don't recall Israel calling for Iran to be wiped off the map, but again Iran never misses the opportunity to call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

[pavelcherepan]

I don't recall the US calling for the death of Iran, but Iran never misses the opportunity to call for the death of America.

 

That's not entirely fair. US imposed sanctions against Iran and pressured for international sanctions through UN SC. This is not an empty threat of destruction that Iranian leaders make, but an actual attempt of economic destruction so, again, your point is not entirely valid.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran

 

 

 

Also I don't recall Israel calling for Iran to be wiped off the map, but again Iran never misses the opportunity to call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

 

Really? Please refer to the links below.

 

Report: Israel Considering Military Action Against Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_for_military_action_against_Iran

Israeli Defense Minister Suggests Military Action against Iran because the US is “Weak”

 

Anyway, we've strayed off-topic and I'd love to hear more from the OP.

[iNow]

waitforufo - You've clearly missed your calling as an international diplomat. Such nuanced and balanced language embodied with deep and profound empathy for the many disparate and often competing preferences and needs of each negotiation participant. It's clear that your even and mature position on this issue is what's required to achieve forward progress amongst even the most strident of hard-liners hoping for nothing but continued failure and strife.

 

 

To the OP: Part of the problem is that a sizable number of people in Iran are quite modern and friendly toward the west, but their leadership has a stranglehold on control and are often extremist despite those moderate views. Not only would that leadership (the Sha) pose a direct risk to the region were they to acquire nukes, but they'd also like sell/give the weapons to other unsavory elements and violent groups in the area thus compounding and magnifying the problem

 

With that said, Iran is a strong and powerful nation with a deep history and a lot of pride in its heritage. This can make it difficult to voluntarily bow down to the will of other nations and comply with demands with which they disagree.

 

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and just think what would happen if Russia tried to dictate to us what energy sources we could use or how you'd feel if China tried to force us not to develop certain weapons. We'd understandably push back, dig in our heels, and refuse to comply, even just if out of pride and a desire to be autonomous.

 

Iranians are human, too after all, and if you think about it this way it becomes easier to see why they are reluctant to compromise and for reasons beyond the other mere nefarious and sinister motivations you and others cite.

[pavelcherepan]

Well said, iNow. +1

[StringJunky]

Would it be unfeasible to suggest to the Iranians that NATO will respond militarily, in their defence, if any nation puts a nuclear weapon on Iranian soil or threatens to do so? This would be in exchange for not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons themselves. I think they need assurance that this eventuality is covered. It goes without saying that NATO commits to never using or threatening nuclear weapons against them in any potential military conflict with them; which they wouldn't do anyway but it should explicitly expressed in an accord.

Edited April 1, 2015 by StringJunky

[waitforufo]

 

That's not entirely fair. US imposed sanctions against Iran and pressured for international sanctions through UN SC. This is not an empty threat of destruction that Iranian leaders make, but an actual attempt of economic destruction so, again, your point is not entirely valid.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran

 

 

Really? Please refer to the links below.

 

Report: Israel Considering Military Action Against Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_for_military_action_against_Iran

Israeli Defense Minister Suggests Military Action against Iran because the US is “Weak”

 

Anyway, we've strayed off-topic and I'd love to hear more from the OP.

The OP states that "most world powers don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb." I'm simply stating two of the obvious whys. Your links do not imply that the US wants the death of Iran. The US is applying sanctions to change the behavior of Iran, not to cause it's death. Similarly with Israel. Israel is not suggesting that it wants to wipe Iran off the map, it is stating that it will take military action to stop Iran from getting nukes. There is a big difference between those two statements. Iran states as frequently as possible that it intends to wipe Israel off the map. Military action is a natural response to when another country makes such statement while working to build nukes and ICBMs. That is why we are there negotiating with Iran. If Iran would accept international controls on its nuclear material, it can have all the nuclear power it wants.

 

waitforufo - You've clearly missed your calling as an international diplomat. Such nuanced and balanced language embodied with deep and profound empathy for the many disparate and often competing preferences and needs of each negotiation participant. It's clear that your even and mature position on this issue is what's required to achieve forward progress amongst even the most strident of hard-liners hoping for nothing but continued failure and strife.

Gee thanks!

[iNow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0

 

Iran and the United States, along with five other world powers, announced on Thursday a surprisingly specific and comprehensive understanding on limiting Tehran’s nuclear program for the next 15 years, though they left several specific issues to a final agreement in June.

<snip>

[President Obama called it] “a historic understanding with Iran.” He warned Republicans in Congress that if they tried to impose new sanctions to undermine the effort, the United States would be blamed for a diplomatic failure.

 

He insisted that the deal “cuts off every pathway” for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and establishes the most intrusive inspection system in history. “If Iran cheats,” he said, “the world will know it.”

 

Under the accord, Iran agreed to cut the number of operating centrifuges it has by two-thirds, to 5,060, all of them first-generation, and to cut its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium from around 10,000 kilograms to 300 for 15 years. An American description of the deal also referred to inspections “anywhere in the country” that could “investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility.” But in a briefing, American officials talked about setting up a mechanism to resolve disputes that has not been explained in any detail.

 

In a move not seen since before the Iranian revolution in 1979, and to the surprise of many in both countries, Iranian government broadcasters aired Mr. Obama’s comments live. In parts of Tehran, people cheered and honked car horns as they began to contemplate a life without the sanctions on oil and financial transactions, though the issue of when the sanctions are to be removed looms as one of the potential obstacles to a final agreement on June 30.

[MigL]

And if I recall correctly Clinton made a similar arrangement with North Korea in exchange for aid.

It was subsequently discovered that NK had gone ahead with their enrichment program.

So another round of international discussions ensued and another deal was reached.

But in the end NK was just extorting aid from the West and they got their nukes.

 

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, it will get them and there isn't much we can do about it.

Attacking them or their program will only justify their 'need' for such a program.

Only a change in their leadership will bring about the trust needed by them and us ( the international community ) to NOT need nukes.

 

Does anyone doubt for a moment that countries like Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, Australia, etc., could not have nukes in less than a year if they wanted ? They choose not to have them because they trust the US to 'go to bat' for them in case of problems.

Iran doesn't trust anyone and their leadership isn't trusted by anyone.

[pavelcherepan]

Does anyone doubt for a moment that countries like Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, Australia, etc., could not have nukes in less than a year if they wanted ?

 

Highly doubtful about Australia. While they do have the largest uranium deposits in the world they currently don't have any operational nuclear reactors and even when they did, there were no enrichment facilities in 'Straya, but all the fuel was bought from overseas. Also for all of those "less then a year" is highly underestimated value. Without technological help from nuclear powers development of a working weapon and creating all the required infrastructure could take half a decade or more.

 

 

 

Iran doesn't trust anyone and their leadership isn't trusted by anyone.

 

Well how could Iran trust anyone? It's a Shia Islam country surrounded from every side by countries with predominantly Sunni leadership and population, a predominantly Persian country surrounded by Arabs, a country that's been invaded by Western powers not even once in the last couple centuries. So in my understanding, these guys are in a really precarious position and they might as well try to protect themselves.

 

Whatever leadership they have, even if Iran does get nuclear weapons, they would never use it offensively. I can imagine they understand quite well that if they do, US can quickly turn the whole country into a radioactive desert.

Edited April 4, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[Ten oz]

My country, United States, would never allow a foriegn country to have a say in what type of technologies we developed or what we did with said technologies. Any attempt to have such influence would be treated as a step toward war. So there is some "do as we say and not as we do" here.

Development of technology is a matter of education. I think our dealings with Iran on this issue is a bit of a catch 22. On one hand more educated countries with healthier middleclasses tend to be more friendly toward western interests and culture. Nuclear power would go a long way toward helping the middleclass in Iran and created opportunities for science and education. On the other hand the region is viewed as unstable with groups unfriendly to the western world and Israel. Even Nuclear power free of a nuclear weapon would bolster their ability to either purchase of build traditional weapons.

I think Iran, like any country on earth would, will proceed in secret to develop what they can as a matter of sovereign principle. So it is better to have an agreement in place than not. Better to have a small window in than no window at all. I also think going to war would be counter productive as it would only solidify the desire in the region for weapons comproable to the West. Only foster the anger that will create the next ISIL and Al Quada.

Germany was home to the Nazi. Germany was responsible for the holocaust. People are still alive today all over the world who lived through that and yet today Germany have nuclear power plants. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor killing American soldiers on American soil and today Japan has nuclear power. If we could find a way to trust former enemies who spilt massive amounts of blood surely we can find a way to work with Iran?

[iNow]

I think our dealings with Iran on this issue is a bit of a catch 22. On one hand more educated countries with healthier middleclasses tend to be more friendly toward western interests and culture. Nuclear power would go a long way toward helping the middleclass in Iran and created opportunities for science and education.

Just to be clear, we're discussing Iran, not a place like Yemen. 85% of the Iranian adult population is literate, well ahead of the regional average of 62%. This rate increases to 97% among young adults (aged between 15 and 24) without any gender discrepancy.

 

There are approximately 92,500 public educational institutions at all levels in Iran, with a total enrollment of approximately 17,488,000 students. As of 2013, 4.5 million students are enrolled in universities, out of a total population of 75 million. Iranian universities churn out almost 750,000 skilled graduates annually.

 

Each year, 20% of Iranian government spending and 5% of GDP goes to education, a higher rate than most other developing countries. 50% of education spending is devoted to secondary education and 21% of the annual state education budget is devoted to the provision of tertiary education.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Iran#Statistics

 

Iran is classed as a middle income country. The official poverty line in Tehran for the year ending March 20, 2008, was $9,612, while the national average poverty line was $4,932. Only about 18% of the population is below the poverty line (relative to 15% in the US). The unemployment rate in Iran is the same as that in Europe at 10%, and seventy percent of Iranians even own their homes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iran#Personal_income_and_poverty

Edited April 4, 2015 by iNow

[MigL]

Really, you don't think Australia could have a working atomic bomb in a year ( or two ) because they have no nuclear reactors ?

What nuclear reactors did America have in Oak Ridge or Los Alamos ?

They have the know-how and the technology. Some of the other countries mentioned ( Canada, Italy, Germany, etc ) have the reactors also. There's a few people on this very forum who have the know-how ( but not the technology ).

 

It is noteworthy that although the Shah Reza Pahlavi was imposed on his people, despised by the majority and ultimately deposed and exiled, he was the one who initiated the changes and secularism which helped Iran become more 'modern' than neighboring countries.

And as bad as he was, Saddam Hussein did the same for Iraq.

[pavelcherepan]

Really, you don't think Australia could have a working atomic bomb in a year ( or two ) because they have no nuclear reactors ?

What nuclear reactors did America have in Oak Ridge or Los Alamos ?

They have the know-how and the technology. Some of the other countries mentioned ( Canada, Italy, Germany, etc ) have the reactors also. There's a few people on this very forum who have the know-how ( but not the technology ).

 

No. I was pointing out that there's no infrastructure for that in Australia. There's plenty of uranium but no enrichment centers and building one is not a matter of a couple months, right? Australia, Germany, Italy, etc. have a know-how to build a modern implosive-type nuclear or thermonuclear weapon? And here I thought that the design of the implosion mechanism and staging of thermonuclear devices was still the among the best-kept secrets of nuclear powers. Developing one from scratch will take time. One year is a joke.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

No. I was pointing out that there's no infrastructure for that in Australia. There's plenty of uranium but no enrichment centers and building one is not a matter of a couple months, right? Australia, Germany, Italy, etc. have a know-how to build a modern implosive-type nuclear or thermonuclear weapon? And here I thought that the design of the implosion mechanism and staging of thermonuclear devices was still the among the best-kept secrets of nuclear powers. Developing one from scratch will take time. One year is a joke.

 

Not to mention the political hurdles. At least one of the two major parties expressly forbids the establishment of nuclear platforms as per their party policy and the larger of the minor parties, which has significant sway in the senate, are the Australian Greens. No points for guessing where they stand. Practically speaking, one year seems far too small a time frame for such a project.

[MigL]

Its not that secret anymore.

And you certainly don't need Cray supercomputers anymore to model the implosion for a thermonuclear device.

 

But we're not even discussing thermonuclear fusion bombs ( although the early Soviet 'sandwich' type would be easiest ).

A simple fission bomb requires either enriched Uranium, which doesn't necessarily need a reactor, or Plutonium, which does.

Any of the countries mentioned have the know-how and technology to enrich Uranium or build a reactor.

 

The blueprints for the bomb itself are available online.

[pavelcherepan]

Its not that secret anymore.

And you certainly don't need Cray supercomputers anymore to model the implosion for a thermonuclear device.

 

But we're not even discussing thermonuclear fusion bombs ( although the early Soviet 'sandwich' type would be easiest ).

A simple fission bomb requires either enriched Uranium, which doesn't necessarily need a reactor, or Plutonium, which does.

Any of the countries mentioned have the know-how and technology to enrich Uranium or build a reactor.

 

The blueprints for the bomb itself are available online.

 

Iran has ~3600 working enrichment centrifuges. Calculations on this site estimate that to get ~45 kg of weapon-grade uranium (enough for 2-3 weapons) it would take them about 2 years and enough uranium for 1 bomb in some 9-10 months. Countries you mentioned have 0 centrifuges (except for Germany) and selling of weapons-grade uranium to non-nuclear powers is verbotten by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

 

So it's 9 months to enrich uranium plus whatever it takes to get comparable number of centrifuges online (couple years at best would be my guess) plus time required to design enrichment centers and to design and build the bomb itself.

 

 

 

Most of the technical work on gas centrifuges is hardly available because it is shrouded in nuclear secrecy.

 

Even if we exclude international and political pressure and public opinion from the picture you're still looking at several years.

 

 

 

The blueprints for the bomb itself are available online.

 

If it all was so easy, we'd already be re-living Fallout for real this time. These 'blueprints' are not actual blueprints but just basic design schematics. Point me to one real blueprint, if you can? As you can see in the quote above you can't even find the design for centrifuge let alone the bomb itself.

 

EDIT: Added quote from Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty

 

 

 

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Edited April 4, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[MigL]

You don't need centrifuges for gas diffusion enrichment.

 

Two of those countries mentioned, Germany and Italy, actually had American supplied nuclear weapons.

They didn't even need blueprints !

 

The fact remains, they do not want or need nuclear weapons, although they could easily have them.

( how long did it take France to develop its own nuclear weapons when it opted out of NATO ??? )

 

Why does the leadership of Iran think they do ?

From iNow's post, it doesn't seem like the well educated, younger population of Iran need, or want them.

[pavelcherepan]

You don't need centrifuges for gas diffusion enrichment.

 

Yeah, but its slow, less energy efficient and no one uses it anymore.

 

 

 

In 2013, the Paducah facility in the US ceased operating, it was the last commercial ²³⁵U gaseous diffusion plant in the world.

 

 

Two of those countries mentioned, Germany and Italy, actually had American supplied nuclear weapons.

They didn't even need blueprints !

 

Nope. Nuclear weapons were located on US military bases and owned by the US. Not sure about Italy, btw. Germany - yes, Turkey - yes, but can't remember about Italy.

 

The fact remains, they do not want or need nuclear weapons, although they could easily have them.

( how long did it take France to develop its own nuclear weapons when it opted out of NATO ??? )

 

It took France all the way from 1945 to 1960 for nuclear weapon and until 1968 for thermonuclear device.

 

France and weapons of mass destruction

 

 

Why does the leadership of Iran think they do ?

From iNow's post, it doesn't seem like the well educated, younger population of Iran need, or want them.

 

Since you're referring to iNow, please re-read post #5.

[MigL]

The latest enrichment methods, such as Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation ( SILEX ), faster and more efficient than centrifuging was developed in AUSTRALIA !

 

Germany and Italy bought F-104G fighter/bombers for low-level delivery of tactical nuclear weapons supplied by the US. NATO's NBMR-3 competition required the ability to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at low level from a VTOL aircraft.

Did these pilots have to go to the nearest US Air Base to pickup their nuke before take-off ?

 

France hadn't even rebuilt its infrastructure by 1955, never mind an atomic bomb.

From deGaulle's go-ahead to actually build a bomb, to the first test, took only a couple of yrs.

Edited April 4, 2015 by MigL

[pavelcherepan]

The latest enrichment methods, such as Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation ( SILEX ), faster and more efficient than centrifuging was developed in AUSTRALIA !

 

So what? It doesn't mean that Australia has a working enrichment facility. So you still need to build a plant, get enough material for a bomb and then design and build a bomb itself. Again, it's not a question of one year or two years.

[MigL]

Sorry, edited my post while you replied.

[pavelcherepan]

France hadn't even rebuilt its infrastructure by 1955, never mind an atomic bomb.

From deGaulle's go-ahead to actually build a bomb, to the first test, took only a couple of yrs.

 

France started nuclear project around 1945 and started producing plutonium in 1949:

 

 

During the Second World War Goldschmidt invented the now-standard method for extracting plutonium while working as part of the British/Canadian team participating in the Manhattan Project. But after the Liberation in 1945, France had to start its own program almost from scratch. Nevertheless, the first French reactor went critical in 1948 and small amounts of plutonium were extracted in 1949.

 

<snip>

 

However, in the 1950s a civilian nuclear research program was started, a byproduct of which would be plutonium.

 

 

So you see, France had been producing plutonium for a decade prior to developing the weapon.

 

Also,

 

 

The intervention of the United States in the Suez Crisis that year is credited with convincing France that it needed to accelerate its own nuclear weapons program to remain a global power.

 

 

Firstly, that happened in 1956 and secondly, it doesn't say "start nuclear weapons program", but "accelerate" existing one.

 

 

 

Did these pilots have to go to the nearest US Air Base to pickup their nuke before take-off ?

 

No idea where they'd go, because while US stored nuclear weapons in what appears to be 23 countries and territories, it never transferred the possession of weapons to another state:

 

 

The magazine article emphasizes the extent to which the Pentagon made special nuclear weapons in which the plutonium or uranium could be removed and stored elsewhere.

 

<snip>

 

They were also to be kept under tight control of American forces, but the article notes that the initial controls were lax.

 

 

US Once deployed 12000 atom arms in in 2 dozen nations

Edited April 4, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[MigL]

In the cold light of morning, 1-2 yrs does seem a little ambitious. Solely because there would be pressure from other countries against the program. But in a case of impending war ( do or die situation ) all of the mentioned countries have the resources, knowledge and technology to do so, if they need to.

 

France was conducting nuclear research in the thirties ( and even much earlier if you consider that the Curies were French ). They set up Nuclear agencies and conducted research, but the go-ahead to go all out and build the French nuclear deterrent didn't happen until deGaulle came back to power at the time of the Algerian problems of 1958.

 

Britain and France decided they needed nukes during the cold war, but I suspect they were still a little apprehensive about German intensions too, so soon after the war. Germany, even though they probably could have developed a nuclear deterrence by the 60s, realized that all those tactical nuclear weapons would be dropped on German soil, against the massive advancing Warsaw Pact armored divisions pouring through the Fulda gap.

 

And IIRC my own country Canada, is the world's largest producer of medical radio-isotopes ( at Chalk River ) which are typically enriched in the range of 20-50 % ( going by memory ), and if they were to switch to Uranium enrichment, even 50 % would yield a 'crude' bomb. You would certainly need a better compression method than the tube with two half critical masses, or a two stage process with Lithium-6 Deuteride assist as used in the sandwich type, early Soviet thermonuclear bomb, before they got their hands on Teller and Ulam's research or the lost J. A. Wheeler papers ( I don't even know if that's a true story ).

 

And although a nice stroll down history lane ( thank you ) , I'm afraid we've gone off-topic...