Iran May Be Close to a Plutonium Bomb, German Defense Experts Warn
Update: The Wall Street Journal picked up the story a week late.
Iran might be “on the verge of producing weapon-quality plutonium,” Germany’s daily Die Welt reported on Nov. 26. Hans Rühle, a former top official in the German defense ministry, and foreign editor Clemens Wergin cite clues pointing to an Iranian crash program to build a plutonium bomb in the just-released International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s nuclear activity. Rühle headed German defense policy planning during the 1980s; Wergin is one of the most capable young journalists writing in any language. Their report should be read in dead earnest.
The IAEA reported that Iran removed fuel rods from the Bushehr light water reactor—supposedly a peaceful application of nuclear energy—on October 22. There might be a technical explanation for the premature extraction of fuel rods from a light water reactor, Rühle and Wergin observe. But “it may also mean the starting point for production of weapons-grade plutonium. That would mean a dramatic expansion and acceleration of Iran’s nuclear armaments program (my translation).”
Although light water reactors are not designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, the design can produce large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a short period of time. In a matter of months, the authors report, the low-enriched uranium fuel in the Bushehr reactor could yield enough plutonium for dozens of atomic bombs:
In a light water reactor, which is operated with low enriched uranium (four percent), the fuel remains in the reactor up to 60 months when the reactor is run at maximum power generation,. But it takes only a few months to produce plutonium 239, that is, weapons-grade plutonium. … In the 1970s a British company had shut down a light water reactor prematurely. The result was around 450 kilograms of plutonium, or material for about 70 bombs.
It would take only three or four months to convert the plutonium from the Bushehr reactor’s spent fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium, the authors report. Depending on how long the fuel rods were used before Iran removed them on Oct. 22, they would yield between 150 kg and 300 kg of plutonium, or enough fissile material for 25 to 50 bombs.
Western negotiators previously ignored the Bushehr reactor, on the grounds that it constituted peaceful use of energy. Oliver Thränert, head of the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich, told Die Welt, “If Iran does not give a convincing explanation for the early removal of fuel rods, a correction in this policy should be urgently considered.”
Last February, I cited Rühle’s analysis of the logistics of a possible Israel strike on Iran, in which the German expert argued that Israel had the capacity to set the program back by years.
I always wanted to put this question to someone with whom I don’t usually agree with, but whose opinions I have high regard. What is the big deal if Iran ac1quired nuclear weapon capability. Israel has these capabilities as well, so we go back to the days of MAD, mutually assurred destruction. We got along with the Soviets and Chinese weapons. We also get alon with India and Pakistan.
The only thing that makes sense is that the a nuclear Iran would trigger an arms race in Persian Gulf. Franklyy, I don’t think these societies are stable enough to support the infracture to manage these weopons. Maybe a country like Turkey would have to counter Iran, but other htan that, I do not see the issue.
I am working on the assumption that nothing Iran has done is irational.
Islamic Republic is an apocalyptic regime that hangs homosexuals and stones women to death. No such regime has the right to possess apocalyptic weaponry. That in and of itself is a grave threat; not to mention the nuclear arms race that would result.
And even though this Israeli blogger hardly depends on her leaders not to revert to their appeasing bent, the fact of the matter is that they are terrified of WMD’s in the hands of a genocidal regime, Allah-bent on exterminating Israel.
Therefore, pay attention to the following – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/09/israels-pm-purposefully-revealing-his-hand-in-cat-mouse-game-with-iranian-regime-others-too-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
This death match will come to a head by a bolt out of the blue….and Israel’s Dolphin Jericho 3 missiles will come into play.
It is only a matter of a short time…
the islamists think of nothing else besides death, dying, murder, war, killing. what part of that is hard and needs added interpretation. in addition, these maniacs keep telling us they’re going to kill us. they hate us. they hate the west. they hate western civilization. they hate our laws. they hate our lives.
yet, nothing about these nuts is addressed in a way that suggests urgency of response. instead, we keep rationalizing this deadly suicidal lunacy.
i have lived my life and i had a wonderful american life with every freedom, all options open to me and none of it required seed money. well, maybe a tiny bit. there were disappointments, of course. on the whole, though, what an incredibly brilliant and humanistic value system americans were so blessed to enjoy. what a loss. but that, as the author said, was another time in another country.
“Don’t dismiss this offhand as the ravings of a lunatic, for lunatics are often right about matters related to lunacy.” – Noel Sheppard
I love this quote, and it fits this discussion. The Iranian Government fits this description to a T.
and what do you think yr government has been doin 4 the last 100 yrs or so…north america is not even yr own home…yr ancestors arrived there destroying all natives who called that continent their home…so what if iran wants nuclear weapons…i can think of worse countries who have violated numerous human rights in the last century and continue to do so…but they have plenty of nuclear missiles and so on…thats why i’m anti-western..u guys like 2 point fingers at everybody,but,there are 3 pointing back at you…clean up yr own backyard 1st
MAD presumes rational actors. An apocalyptic regime most decidedly is not.
You haven’t spent much time learning about religion, have you?
Ah the old moral equivalence argument. If Israel has weapons what’s wrong with Iran having them? Well Iran has stated they’ll use them to destroy Israel for starters. Get your head out of the clouds Bob, it’s a vicious world out there.
If any one thinks Abbadabbadojob is rational, they need to think again.
Robert,
As Bernard Lewis wrote, “In the apocalyptic cult of the Mullahs who rule Iran, Mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.”
The extremist cult of the Iranian leadership believe that it is their duty to create chaos through war in order to bring on the return of the Mahdi.
In the least bad outcome, the Iranians will use their nuclear umbrella to launch a massive proxy war of terror against Israel, US interests, and any other perceived enemies in the region. The Gulf States, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would likely respond to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons with their own nuclear arms race. The price of oil would quadruple over night.
In the worst possible outcome, Iran would launch a nuclear attack on Israel. They have already declared their intention to wipe Israel off the map, and boasted how the fate of Iran is not important, meaning they don’t care about possible Israeli retaliation.
This is why it’s a bad deal all round if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.
Iran’s President belongs to sect of Islam called colloquially “12-ers.” They work actively to bring about the return of their Mahdi, or the 12th Imam, who is the Islamic version of the second coming. They believe that in order to do that roughly 1/3 of the world’s population must die among other things.
Add that knowledge on top of the other truth that muslims believe that there is no higher glory or reward a muslim my earn than to die furthering the cause of Islam.
Add to that the endless hatred that muslims have for Jews and Israel in particular.
Also, understand that no other country in the region wants Iran to have nukes; the Saudis, the Jordanians, Qatar and other have all privately expressed their deep reservations. When your own cohorts don’t want you to have nukes, that ought to tell you something about how stable and rational they think Iran will be with them.
Now, ask yourself if you really believe that Iranian nukes will sit quietly in their silos. This is why allowing them to have nukes is a big problem. No one thinks they will stay in their silos. The Iranians will almost certainly use them
When your own cohorts….
Nah, Iran is run by and largely (90-95%) composed of Shia heretics. So is Iraq now, but they don’t really have their act together yet; those are the two big Shia majority states.
Our host has pointed out that Iran is, with justification, worried about the fate of various Shia minority populations in the mostly Sunni Muslim world (this is also an important part of the Syria mess, which is run by a large (2.6 million) minority of Alawites, which per Wikipedia is “are a prominent mystical religious group centred in Syria who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam”). The corresponding Sunni run states are horrified by the prospect of such a militant Shia state getting nukes.
I was forgetting/ignoring the Sunni/Shia schism assuming they unite in the face of the Little and Great Satans. But you’re right, Sunnis and Shia have a long and storied history of trying to kill each other if they can’t figure out how to kill infidels.
“I always wanted to put this question to someone with whom I don’t usually agree with, but whose opinions I have high regard. What is the big deal if Iran ac1quired nuclear weapon capability. Israel has these capabilities as well, so we go back to the days of MAD, mutually assurred destruction. We got along with the Soviets and Chinese weapons. We also get alon with India and Pakistan.”
The biggest problem is time and what’s known as “crisis stability.” If the US and Soviet heartlands had been the same distance from each other as Iran and Israel are, we would’ve had 15 minutes from first possible detection of launch to warhead impact. That was where we were in the late 1950s to late 1960s, when the Cold War was at its most dangerous. The US and the USSR both spent a LOT of time, money, and skill to gain another 15 minutes of tactical warning. This gave the national decision makers a grand total of 10-15 minutes or so to decide what to do.
(Tactical warning is detection of a ballistic missile launch; strategic warning is discernment of an enemy’s intention to launch. Strategic warning is inherently more unreliable because it cannot rely solely on observing overt acts; it attempts to understand the enemy’s mindset through necessarily incomplete and almost certainly inaccurate secondhand data.)
With Iran and Israel, there is absolutely no chance to improve tactical warning–the best both sides can do is 15 minutes (the time of flight of an IRBM). Eventually, both sides would be able to destroy hardened military targets (fixed missile silos and command & control nodes), assuming they are presently unable to do so. This means that, in a crisis, there will be a “use ‘em or lose ‘em” dynamic. During the Cold War, in a US-USSR crisis, the question would have been whether to strike first or strike second. In a likely Iranian-Israeli standoff in 2020, both sides would be faced with the prospect that if they do NOT strike first, they won’t be able to strike at all. So ANY indications that the other side might intend to strike will argue in favor of pre-emption. That’s not a stable situation.
While it may be true that a second strike may not be possible from land based silos, the Israelis have recently purchased several state of the art German submarines capable of launching cruise missiles and are widely believed to have modified them to carry nuclear warheads. This would give them an almost guaranteed second strike capability much like the US boomer fleet. It may also give them the ability for an undetected first strike depending on how stealthy their cruise missiles are.
I agree on the general principle that the closer the adversaries the less stable the truce though. The Cuban missile crisis was brought on by the prospect that the soviets could strike the east coast with barely 15 minutes warning and things calmed down substantially once those missiles were removed.
Another thing to consider is that Iran may well give bombs to third party terrorist groups for delivery. Although it would probably still be possible to analyze the fallout and ascertain the source of the weapon and retaliate.
A really big concern in the middle east as well is the stability of regimes. Iran was able to shut down their protesters this time, but will they always be able to do so in the future? What would’ve happened if Libya, Egypt, or Syria possessed deployed nuclear weapons? How easy would it be for one to disappear into the hands of an Al-queida during the chaos of a revolution? That would be the ultimate nightmare scenario, because a terrorist group WOULD use a nuclear weapon, since they have no population or infrastructure to retaliate against. If Israel is struck in such a scenario I’ve read that their “Samson option” involves pouring out all of their 200+ warheads across the middle east, even in countries not directly involved, so that they could target Muslim population centers and holy sites like Mecca. They recognize that it’s a greater clash of civilizations with Islam and if they’re going down they will take Islam with them.
That’s not even the worst-case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the Samson Option causes Israel to target Moscow, triggering the Russian Perimetr system, which will retaliate not against Israel, but rather against the US and UK.
There’s no logical reason for Israel to target Russia. True there were reports of some threats at the height of the Yom Kippur War that Israel could ‘reach out and touch’ Moscow. But it never came to that. Russia is in fact important to Israeli strategic calculations as the single largest non-Arab source of oil outside of North America to the world. Hence the extensive Russian-Israeli repparoachment of recent years, along with at least two members of Russia’s Skolkovo board reportedly having Israeli passports, of which the Kremlin is fully aware.
X – go and re-read the story of Samson in the Bible again. It’s a suicide option, taking as many of the bad guys with you as possible. It’s also an end-game deterrence (Always a thing to consider when thinking about nuclear weapons) and an inducement to Russia and the U.S. to help calm things down before it gets to that stage.
“Franklyy, I don’t think these societies are stable enough to support the infracture to manage these weopons.”
Pakistan — less stable than Iran — has had nukes for many years.
“Pakistan — less stable than Iran — has had nukes for many years.”
And we are extraordinarily worried about the security of the Pakistani nuclear stockpile, Q.E.D.
Remember World War Two’s Japanese kamikaze pilots? They were first heavily indoctrinated with their emperor worshipping false religion, part of which assured them that if they die “defending” him, they will immediately go to heaven. I don’t remember anything about some insane number of “virgins” (houris, in the arab languages, our word for that is whore, but never mind the details here…) they’ll also get to play with. Then they were trained to fly the Zero, the trainers having landing gear so they can go round again. Next, a mission was lanuched, pilots launched, targets identified, drop-away landing gear fitted guaranteeing a one way trip. The rest is history.
Expand that thinking to a whole nation and you have the best reason why Iran should NOT be allowed to have nuclear tactical weapons. History has shown men are gullible enough to kill themselves wantonly, on thin assurances their eternity will be good, if only they’ll take out the “enemy”. If their nuclear programme assures Israel’s destruction AND their own, what matter? They believe Israel is condemned no matter what they do, as they do not worship the false god allah. (wise choice, Israel…). According to their false god allah, the Iranians, when destroyed in retaliation, believe they will begin their good eternity, which includes playing with those above mentioned houris. Selfish greedy men, bent on building a lie. Yes, they ARE dangerous. It is no longer schoolyard punks with baseball bats.
Robert, there is no moral equivalence between Iran and Israel. An analogy might be to claim an adult law abiding citizen can carry a gun and Charles Manson can too. With a nuclear weapon, Iran is in a position similar to North Korea. They can demand the U.S. give them stuff or they will blow up their neighbors, especially Israel. That is the best possible scenario; the worst is they may actually blow up Israel because they really believe Allah will reward them.
And does anyone have any confidence that if Iran bombed Israel, the US would reply in kind? With Obama in charge and his penchant for following the UN line, and Russia and China probably warning the US to not retaliate, I can see Iran nuking Tel-Aviv, and the US standing by with Obama saying he is ‘Deeply Concerned”. I have the feeling if Israel retaliates before or waits until Iran bombs, Israel is still the loser, except if they bomb now, they may be have a few million more people in the future.
I see the Prez. expressing his concern after about a two week absence from the spotlight. Ater which he will have had his people locate an anti-Islamic video on you tube to blame the entire episode on.
Upon face-to-face being presented with a death threat from and Iranian, for a mild religious discussion, and from other reading upon Iran as a topic, and from seeing how Iran attempted to close ocean traffic, to my mind, “The only thing which makes sense is to understand that, Iranians are beset with a dangerous wild streak—and, one which is not shared in common with Russia or China, . . . I don’t know just why I would wish to respond to someone who appears to me as a fool; but, . . .
Do you have a right to an opinion?
I saw a lot trash like you at Hopkins. If you say it loud, say it long you might convince people.
You don’t convince me. I take what people say seriously rather than saying that they don’t mean it. There would be far more Jews around if people had believed Hitler rather than believing their fantasies.
If all you have is unsupported opinion be gone. Further you like all the others only write: you would not have the guts to say it to another face: I know you so well.
Iran would be the leader of the Muslim world if and when they destroy Israel and that is something they say a lot.
Iran is led by fanatical Islamic religious fruitcakes who believe they will go to heaven by dying in an apocalyptic confrontation. Mutual Assured Destruction is no deterrent to them.
The West may soon get a reality check about Islam soon.
Israel has had the capability for decades, without using it. Israel has never called for the destruction of Iran.
Iran is ruled by a lunatic theocracy, that has been calling for the complete destruction of Israel for decades.
Do you really think that there is a moral equivalence here?
The concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is dependent upon the assumption that neither party is bat shit crazy. If one owner of nuclear arms capability is mad, MAD won’t work.. and we get a mad exchange of nuclear arms. Israel is a small place, and will be destroyed. Iran is a big place, and some of it will survive.
The lunatic Islamists that run Iran see this as an acceptable loss, and will proceed regardless of casualties.
please give this some thought
There are two problems with the deterrence argument. As Henry Kissinger observes, the US and Russia came much closer than most people know to a nuclear exchange, despite the fact that both sides were highly rational, wished to avoid nuclear war, and had good command and control. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, so will Saudi Arabia (almost immediately, from Pakistan) along with Turkey and others. With multiple nuclear powers and very poor command and control, Kissinger says, the probably of nuclear war will be 100%.
The second (and to me more compelling) issue is Iran’s rational self-interest. Iran faces demographic and economic collapse within a generation, unless it acquires its neighbors’ oil (Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Basra Province of Iraq, etc.), and it can do so only under a nuclear umbrella. That is not a problem unique to Iran or to Muslim countries. I compared Iran today to France in 1914 in this essay:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak01.html
You don’t have to be apocalyptic to be an Iranian leader, but it helps.
thanks
David, your reply to Robert highlights the problems I laid out in my own reply. The US and USSR both genuinely wished to avoid a nuclear war, had an inherently more stable and less dangerous situation, were able to take many steps to further stabilize the situation, and had done so; even so, they came close on multiple occasions.
Iran and Israel, even presuming both sides genuinely wish to avoid a nuclear conflict (that might even be the case now, but that’s a matter of intent and intentions can change very suddenly, on both sides), will never have the technical ability to increase the stability of their situation; physics and geography are immutable.
The US intelligence community has been saying much the same sotto voce.
The argument has two side. One believes that if you can hold them off for a while, then they will die under their own weigh before they know how far gone they are, much like the USSR.
The other believes that they know time is short and they must act. I believe this case is the stronger because they are paying a very high price for speed.
Iran has no reason to feel threatened, so is doing this work to dominate the region and pursue other ends once the means are available.
The “time is short” bit applied to Hitler, too. His economy had stalled under his own version of Obama’s “stimulous” pkg and most historians/economists believe this is why he chose to go to war when he did, i.e., before the economy collapsed. Remember, Admiral Rader, Chief of the German Navy had warned Hitler that the Navy would not be built out to a true war-fighting capability until 1945, but Hitler went early anyway pressured by the economy.
Also, wasn’t THE biggest take-away from WWII agreed upon by most immediate post-WW II historians/politicians the fact that we should have read and taken Mein Kamph seriously?
At the risk of repeating myself, I will repeat myself. Israel should use every effort to pursue technical means of missile defense. But, even the best defense will not be one hundred percent effective. Therefore Israel should also make civil defense an immediate priority.
Every residence and commercial building in Israel should be equipped with underground shelters with 2 weeks of food and water. A nuclear attack is a devastating thing to absorb, but most of the people who will die in one, will die from radiation and fires that are the secondary effects of the blast. Most of those deaths can be prevented. Further, the Iranians are not so capable that they can be sure of hitting the center of their targets. An Iranian missile aimed at Tel Aviv has a decent chance of blowing up in the sea, but the clouds of radioactive steam that it would create could be deadly, but not to a protected population.
The Swiss created such a system during the Cold War: “La Place de la Concorde Suisse” by John McPhee:
– http://www.amazon.com/Place-Concorde-Suisse-John-McPhee/dp/0374519323/
Israel’s military is based on the Swiss example. Israel’s civil defense, should be based on the Swiss example also.
It would have the additional effect of blunting missile attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.
Further, Israel needs make it clear to the Iranians that the Palestinians are hostages to their good behavior. This means that there will be no “peace process” as long as the Iranians pursue nuclear weapons. Israel would not intentionally harm Palestinians, but if there is a crisis in Israel caused by Iranian attack, all resources will devoted to saving Jewish lives. Damage to water and electricity supplies will hurt Palestinians deeply. Finally, that Mosque has a mortgage on it. Any Iranian missile that lands on Israel will damage it.
Israel’s enemies would surely take advantage of Israelis living for weeks in bunkers, as it would be seen as “defeatable”. With the country shut down, its infrastructure damaged, and even its soldiers sheltered against radiation, those enemies would go in for the kill. Israel can’t tolerate *any* threat to its ability to defend itself.
You are forgetting a few small details. First, Israel is small! Only about 50 miles across. Virtually the entire country is in an epicenter of a few bomb strikes. Shelters won’t do a whole lot of good. Second, while Switzerland is not huge, they have huge mountains, made out of nice solid rocks. Easer digging into a mountainside than down. Also the rugged terrain will shelter some areas from blasts. In addition, tunneling into the mountains is a Swiss way of life. The tunnels have a useful economic return on investment in a country that requires numerous tunnels, and where much of the country’s terrain is unsuitable for development. Finally, there are no suicidal regimes targeting the Swiss.
Actually, shelters do a lot of good, and given that most of the Swiss population was in big cities rather than up in the mountains, that’s where they built most of them.
Let me just point out an anecdote from one of the bombings of Japan: a guy in a tunnel that opened close to ground zero, who was 50+ feet from the opening, survived. Sure, he got tossed back into the tunnel quite a bit and didn’t come out unscathed, but, really, these weapons are fearsome but not magical.
A couple of technical points:
You must remove the rods quickly, otherwise you get too much of the unfavorable isotopes of plutonium (one produces a lot of heat and is used in deep space probes for that purpose, the other fissions at a high rate and for example put the kibosh on our plans for a plutonium gun assembly bomb).
While the chemical extraction of plutonium from those rods is much easier than enrichment of uranium, it’s still messy, dangerous work. When parts of your extraction plant break down, you can’t send people in there to fix them. For the Manhattan Project, the plant was 100% automated and built in a canyon, with overhead cranes for pulling out broken modules so that they could be fixed in a less radioactive environment.
Anyway, I’m not saying the Iranians can’t do this, just that it’s technically non-trivial.
Pu-238 (the deep space probe fuel isotope) production requires Np-237, which takes a long time to build up.
I haven’t checked the isotope charts, but I can well believe that. It’s a problem in trying to recycle normal civilian used reactor rods (a bomb’s worth of plutonium dissipates around 100 kW (!)) and it makes weapons grade plutonium is “warm”.
It’s Pu-240 that’s the real problem; according to Wikipedia weapons grade plutonium has less than 7% and that requires removing fuel rods within 90 days.
It’s believed that’s one of the reasons for the RBMK (Chernobyl) reactor design. In addition to using pipes which the Soviets were good at making instead of a large pressure vessel, it allows constant shuffling of fuel rods.
Nothing matters to these ideological monsters. A series of dirty bombs to make Israel uninhabitable will be perfectly satisfactory to these freaks of Darwin. They will grind up all their radioactive crap and use ordinary explosives to disperse the dust.
It would be way too easy for the Israelis to interdict such a strategy, the number of bombs required and their placement are overwhelming logistical hurdles.
Another alternative: one or two EMP weapons triggered over Israeli airspace. A much more efficient force multiplier than a dirty bomb. And not out of Iran’s technical reach.
Except there’s no way to generate enough contamination to render Israel uninhabitable, save for detonating multiple cobalt bombs.
The Pu detonator is also non-trivial, unlike the U235 one.
Sure, you can manage the fissibles handling and purification regardless of precautions — they will just declare the workers to be shahid to enter the “fire of Allah’s justice” and if they die, that they die “in the way of Allah” as mujahideen guaranteed a place in paradise. They won’t lack for volunteers to get it done — safely, unsafely — whatever — to them its always war and death is expected in war.
Does anyone else see the irony here that the procedures, equipment and application of making a nuclear bomb was accomplished largely by a great number of Jewish Americans? No, I’m not implying anti-semitism here, other than it’s that the radical muslims are using data and methods that had their genesis with those “evil Jooooooooos” from the great satan.
I wonder how a muslim rationalizes that.
If the Iranians are acting rationally why go after a bomb at all? I could understand it if they were able to develop one in secret like Israel or the Pakistanis did.
However their cover is long since blown and with modern techniques most of what they are up to is well known. The price they are paying is political isolation, economic catastrophe, and a gutting of conventional military which relies of home grown weapons of dubious value.
Could they invade Iraq under a nuclear umbrella? Maybe but you still need a real air force and modern weapons and in the long run oil is not what it used to be. If that were the goal it would seem more efficient to get rid of current sanctions and build a credible conventional military. Saudi fields? US would defend those and Iran would perish.
The only rational explaination is that the bomb is to be used against Israel to bring about the apocolypse and return of the Mahdi. A lot of us hold very strong religious beliefs of our own but tend to discount those of others. Belief is the foundation of the Islamic Republic and very rational from their point of view.
Iran is not going to nuke Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Incinerating Jews however will win you a place in heaven.
Why all of this aggression toword Israel and Jews? What is the rational goal there? Israel is far away and could care less about Iran except for the threat. What does Iran get from Hezbolla and Gaza? Why bother with them at all if the goals were regional? They are far from the Gulf.
Occam’s razor. Everything fits into one explaination. Get nukes and get rid of the spriritual “cancer” preventing paradise on earth.
As per rationality, this is what I would argue if I were the Iranian foreign minister: Look at the map of the region. I got Russia to my North, I got the Pakistanis ( and Indians) to my East. I got the Israelis to my West. All of these countries have nuclear weapons. On top of all this I got the Americans all over the place who haven’t gotten over us kicking out the Shah and the hostage stuff 30 years ago.
David is probably right about the ability of some of the countries such as Saudi lacking command and control structures, but I think the most likely scenario is that the region would come more under Iranian influence. Iran may want to strip some of the Shiite regions from their Sunni overlords.
Again if I were the Iranian FM, I would argue that after Libya surrendered its nukes, more or less voluntarily, look how shabbily Qadafi was treated.
One further thing: Incinerating Jews may or may not be what Iran wants, but I could bet that they would not want to incinerate TelAviv at the expense of their 10-15 largest cities.
Bob – My apologies…I can’t find the exact quote before taking off for work, but one of the Iranian leaders, Khomeni, Khemeni, Khatami, I forget who, said something to the effect that if they take out Israel, it’s worth a few million Muslim lives. I would hope that someone reading this thread might find it.
The quote goes specifically to your point about rationality…or lack thereof. One cannot discount the Twelver’s (I think that’s what they’re called) beliefs and their eschatology.
I remember the quote. I think it was Ahmadinejad.
Dore Gold discusses this at length in “The Rise of Nuclear Iran”. The comment was articulated by Rafsanjani, but others have expressed similar sentiments – that even if Iran is destroyed, Israel will be gone and Islam will emerge triumphant.
Found it. At Friday prayers in December 2001 Rafsanjani said,
“If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonization would face a stalemate because the application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world.”
What’s a few hundred thousand or millions of Muslims’ deaths to make sure Israel’s destroyed? That’s rational…from their point of view.
Sheesh!
And Rafsanjani is widely considered a moderate…
what this fool fails to realise is this: the geopolitical entity he calls Israel is NOT one and the same with the “spiritual” entity also called Israel. He can destroy the piece of dirt and everything.one in it. But he cannot destroy all of judaism, as, thanks to earlier conquest (that of Rome, 70 AD, for one) resulted in a disapora. He realises this about his own nation, Iran, and is foolish enough to sacrifie much of his own people and nation on the false premise Israel will be utterly destroyed.
In backlash, I would guess that should Iran deploy some such device in an attempt to liquidate Israel, it could well mean the beginning of a persecution/elimination of moslems worldwide. Thus Haman’s curse would come upon himself, just as it did for Haman. The thing he built to destroy the object of his hatred/jealousy became the very thing that destroyed himself AND all his progeny. His lineage was forever blotted out. Such things do happen…..
Could it be that he (and others) are aware of this and with the destruction of the real estate currently known as Israel, that the ensuing attack will bring about the so-desperately wanted war with the rest of the world, banking on their predisposition that islam will be triumphant?
They’re crazy but not stupid. Actually, I believe they are crazy, calculating zealots whose behavior could only be written by an expert in sci-fi. Beware the process of the evil minds because they are smart and misguided and determined.
Many, many questions, but only few related ones here. From what I have read, the Obama administration placed enormous pressure on Israel not to move militarily into Gaza. At the beginning of Israel’s response to Hamas, Barry Rubin proclaimed that Iarael has learned that it is on its own (if I remember his words). If the Obama administration played a significant role is dissuading the forceful Netanyahu to accept a truce (not a peace deal) with Hamas, does not the question arise as just how much of Israel’s “own” is under its own control? Would not Obama seek to exert the same pressure on the Israeli Prime Minister NOT to attack the Iranian nuclear production facilities? Would not the argument be that the US will protect Israel? Upto date the nuclear possibility discussed in the article does not seem to have made it into the press, even here in Germany. When I can I read Rühle. I will look him up. I just cannot imagine that the German political climate would allow too much support of Israel in the Iranian problematic, thinking here of the Grass diatribe and its positive acceptance despite its poor literary quality. A rather dangerous situation has been suggested by this article.
Continuing with the rationality discussion:
Assume you were the Iranian leadership and had decided to go for nuclear weapons. You don’t have them yet, but your evil enemy Israel (aka Little Satan aka Zionist Regime) does. Would it not be a good idea to temporarily diminish your active support for terror groups attacking Israel? Would you consider it wise to regularly promise to wipe your enemy off the map? Would you do all this while repeatedly promoting Holocaust denial?!
This behavior so far does not inspire confidence as to their “rationality”.
The point you make is “rational”. I have seen German documentaries where Hitler, just having become Chancelor and dressed in formal ware, marches up the street and the German commentator, quoting the NYT, expresses the opinion that the responsiblities of governing will make Hitler into a statesman. Believe or not!!! Certainly Britain’s Chaimberlain was no Nazi and found Hitler to be ungentelmanly. But, Chaimberlain found Hitler to be a man to make a deal with and who would keep his word. This opinion despite Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” which had untold distribution (made Hitler a bundle of money). Believe it or not! My point is that your very plausible interpretation of the Iranians simply may not be the view of the Obama administration. Obama will be probably no different than Chaimberlain. And that makes one worry.
There is no pure “rationality”; rationality can only be measured against one’s principles. It is puzzling that people who would describe themselves as multiculturalist assume that other cultures necessarily have the same principles as we do, and that their rational behavior will thus be the same as ours.
Smartest comment yet – including my own.
Danke Schoen.
Even better than smart: Wise.
BTW, spindok agrees, above:
“The only rational explaination is that the bomb is to be used against Israel to bring about the apocolypse and return of the Mahdi. A lot of us hold very strong religious beliefs of our own but tend to discount those of others. Belief is the foundation of the Islamic Republic and very rational from their point of view.”
I think Leonard’s post is the problem Robert Abrams and many others on the left have with the danger of a totalitarian regime like Iran possessing nuclear weapons. The left through deeply embedded moral relativism and foolish naivety is unable to see evil as evil even when it is staring them in the face. Instead they project their own squishy sentimentality unto monsters like the Iranian leaders.
The point is that besides the blind naifs who believe that if we would just be nice enough, our enemies would sing Kumbaya, there are many who are certain that while our enemies may be evil, they’re not insane, and will thus act in their own self-interest as we see it. The obvious hitch is that our enemies don’t necessarily see things the same way. Sometimes they do, as in the case of the post-Stalin Soviet leadership. And sometimes they don’t. Does Iran? I wouldn’t bet on it. Bob would. Can Israel afford to take this bet?
As a micro-example, see the occasional cases of mothers of suicide bombers loudly proclaiming how happy and proud they are, and how they hope their other sons follow suit. This seems monstrous and even insane to us, but if you truly believe that such “martyr operations” are the will of God, and that the martyr will gain immediate access to a paradise that is incomparably better than any earthly experience, this reaction is perfectly “rational”.
Very true. Western politicians want their adversaries to be rational, so they project those wishes onto them. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, were all clinically insane, while still capable of rational calculations. The same goes for the Ayatollah
Khamenei.
Mao had begged the USSR for nuclear weapons and submarines so that he could start a nuclear war with America. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro had demanded of Khrushchev that he launch an all out nuclear attack on the US. If either of those men had had nuclear weapons, the world would have been thrown into a nuclear holocaust. The Iranian mullahs would do the same if given the chance.
FYI: Martin Bormann made it a marriage requirement for all good Germans ( i.e. everybody ) to purchase and present a copy of Mein Kampf during the ceremony. (!)
It was to be used in lieu of a Christian bible, which had been traditionally constructed with an annex/ prefix such as to inscribe the descendants of the new marriage — and the parents of the newly-weds.
Hence, there was a sea of Mein Kampfs floating all over the place, as most purchased it simply to appease the Nazi Party apparats.
These book sales became the dominant source of Adolf’s personal spending cash. (In this regard, he was no Göring; power and blood were his lusts.)
Israel needs to attack Iranian atomic sites as expeditiously as it can. Perhaps the time is now when the Islamic world is in complete disarray (except for Iran and some minor states). I hope they have the courage to take the risk rather than wait for Obama to ride to their rescue … ‘Cuz we all know that ain’t gonna happen!
It’s much harder to make plutonium warheads than uranium bombs. Plutonium itself is tricky to work with as its various allotropes have different crystal structures and substantially different densities. The δ phase is stable at room temperature if alloyed with, for example, gallium. Plutonium is also pyrophoric and dangerous if inhaled. Plutonium cannot be used in a gun-type bomb as spontaneous fission in the Pu240 isotope occurs at too high a rate for the sub-critical masses to be assembled. It can only be used in an implosion-type weapon, even with supergrade plutonium. As Harold says, an attempt to limit the amount of Pu240 in the irradiated fuel may be behind the early removal of the cores, but even with very low levels of Pu240 gun-type assembly is near impossible. Once you have the plutonium in an appropriate form, design of the implosion system is a complex engineering task. One cannot simply surround a Pu core with a shell of explosives as it is impossible to get a radially symmetric detonation front and the fissile material will be squirted out between the convergent detonations due to the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Instead, multiple detonation points must be converted into a symmetric implosion via explosive lensing. The precise hydrodynamic calculations necessary to model this are hard, and engineering lenses of sufficient precision and dimensional stability is a challenge. It should be noted, however, that a working fission device is possibly adaptable as the primary of a far more destructive fusion weapon.
The upshot of this is that if Iran is pursuing a plutonium bomb it faces several difficult hurdles, even if it has an off-the-shelf design. This may give Israel some breathing room. Nonetheless, Iran must be prevented from obtaining a viable warhead. Any and all measures to prevent this should be on the table, including digging the production or storage facilities out with nuclear weapons in laydown or bunker-busting mode, despite the very large amount of fallout this would produce. Millenarian religious fascists are not equivalent to secular dictatorships like the USSR or China. They cannot be allowed to possess nuclear devices, and if the price of that prevention is the death of a substantial number of their citizens then that is acceptable.
I should note that uranium is also pyrophoric, one of the many reasons it’s useful in military penetrators.
I understand from Wikipedia (warning!) that we’ve got designs that only require two detonation points, but we can assume for the Iranians the constraints you’ve laid out hold. Assuming they’ve got a design or can do the calculations, it would still be a lot of hard work. E.g. they’d need to make tests using high speed X-ray movies to confirm their implosion system works, else they’d likely waste a lot of plutonium making squib explosions at best.
As for Israel using nukes to take out Iran’s weapons making facilities, you may well be very right, but I think such an action would also result in the destruction of the country on the installment plan, in the manner of South Africa but a thousand times more intense.
This is a worthwhile technical discussion, but I wouldn’t consider the plutonium route to be the sole path of Iran to a nuclear bomb. It seems rather to be yet another track being implemented by Iran. Even if they themselves don’t hold out much hope for it, it is intended as yet another head of the Hydra.
“Millenarian religious fascists are not equivalent to secular dictatorships like the USSR or China.”
tell that to Craig ‘Streetwise Professor’ Pirrong, @ReginaldQuill, and a whole gaggle of Internet groupies who think putting the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Damascus will be awesome because Putin doesn’t want that.
You’re too optimistic: they have Russian (mercenary) technical help AND a viable design.
This was acknowledged to our NATO partners years ago in Vienna.
Yes, it’s a two-point, one-point safe, implosion design.
They don’t need Rembrandt, merely painting-by-the-numbers will do.
And, yes, the design in question is IRBM suitable.
Be under no illusions: the mullahs are not going to follow the Manhattan foot-steps.
They are proceeding with late 1950s designs that are far more advanced — and which use far, far less Pu 239.
U 235 bombs are, in a gun-type scheme, impractical for any IRBM. You’d need a Sapwood scale rocket — which is far larger than any Iranian missile project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka
Where HEU 235 could work is in building converter reactors of a much smaller footprint — like under a football pitch — or in a university’s swimming-pool-type reactor.
It’s a no-brainer that using such a scheme would permit fuel rods to be dipped and removed with alacrity, so much so, that Pu 240 concentrations would be nil, and the technical means would be a snap.
Iran already has such swimming pool designs in operation — since 1978!
So we have:
1) A perfected design in hand,
2) A perfected reactor under way,
3) No contamination issues,
4) Plenty of HEU able to fire off in a swimming pool of limited dimensions,
5) A reactor scheme that can be replicated at will all UNDER the country,
6) Computational power and software algorithms that Manhattan era technicians lacked,
7) Bumbling naifs in the Pink House who will fund an atonement annuity/ protection racket,
8) Addled idiots all over the MSM who are stooges for the islamist movement….
What could go wrong?
Imagine waking up one morning and finding that every single electrically powered item doesn’t work…no TV/radio, no cell phone/landline, no car, no air conditioning, no refrigerator, no water, etc. After you walk outside your home, you find that there is no electricity anywhere and no cars/buses/trains/planes are moving. If an EMP weapon blew up high in the atmosphere hundreds of miles from you, this is what you will experience. No boom, no flash, and none of the above for hundreds of miles around you. Are you ready?
This is precisely what a terror State as Iran would aim for. The EMP effect. There was more than one US (Congress/Senate)commission on an EMP blast. It can easily be launched, off the US coast, and still in intl waters, by a commercial vessel (with a launching pad). One powerful A-bomb is sufficient to throw the majority of the US mainland back to the year 1800…before electricity was invented. Within a week, alas millions of death would result. Not a nice scenery.
Some of the commenters above clearly know their plutonium nuclear physics. I wanted to add the dimension of some of the physical effects of what even third-world countries like Iran could do to their intended targets in the very near future.
From memory, it would take more than one bomb to cover the majority of the country, but you might get the majority of the people with an East Coast oriented bomb.
It could be very bad, but it would also be a terrible gamble. Suppose something’s a bit off and the effects aren’t as devastating as the worst case, or one or more of the devices detonate in the wrong location or simply fail. “Never do an enemy a small injury” as Machiavelli warned, one of the fatal mistakes of the 9/11 attack (well, as I understand it Osama et. al. believed we’d fold after that, a terrible misapprehension of us on their part). Not that this would be a “small” injury, but as I’ve outlined it wouldn’t necessarily be a fatal one.
Assuming one had a major effect, it would be hard for us to avoid millions of deaths, and we’d be a bit … annoyed. Enough to glass the country responsible, I’d suspect. And our posture towards the rest of the Muslim world would get immensely harsher.
Still, it would be better for the latter if we were the target of a relatively limited strike. After taking a big enough hit, Israel’s SIOP probably has them smashing all the local militarily significant population centers, so the survivors wouldn’t be easily overrun. In addition to making sure they utterly destroyed the country responsible.
In that, Iran is exquisitely vulnerable: e.g. take out their one refinery complex and you eliminate half their distillate supply. Interdict in one way or another their importation by sea of distillates and you get the rest, at which point most of the country would starve.
Depends on the height of the device, and its yield. The Graham Report on EMP, on which the book “One Second After” was based, calculated that a single EMP weapon detonated at 400 Km above Kansas would compromise something like 70-80% of the civilian electrical infrastructure of the Continental US. Even if it only affected 20%, look at how Superstorm Sandy screwed up air transportation of the nation for several weeks, or how the cascading power loss in the northeast began with a single event a few years ago. If transportation, manufacturing, electronic communication, etc. are significantly affected, God knows where the impacts will end.
What I was able to find on the Graham Reports was silent on any “calculations” of effects. Rather, they mostly focused on Starfish Prime, the only test done at 400Km, which was of a 1.4Mt warhead not tuned for maximum prompt gamma ray output/maximum EMP effect. The other tests were at lower altitudes by the Soviets, using warheads of 300Kt yield or much less. Wikipedia for what it’s worth say you can get 0.1-0.5% of prompt gamma out of a warhead, and that other effects can diminish EMP delivered to the ground.
These are all thermonuclear yields, which I’ve read tend to produce a less favorable mix for EMP, but the bottom line here is that we’re likely talking 1-1.5 orders of magnitude less from what we’d expect from Iran’s first generation of nuclear warheads.
So without further examination (which I can do if you’re really like, I have the references), it would appear Iran could strike a great blow at the Great Satan, particularly if they’re careful and accurate in their target selection (say East Coast for political, cultural and population centers, or the Gulf oil and refining region), but not a crippling let along apocalyptic one. Which brings us back to Machiavelli’s admonition to “Never do an enemy a small injury” (which 9/11 fits much better than this, but it’s still not a “large” let along fatal injury).
They could do it, they could kill millions of Americans, but we would terminate them with extreme prejudice. And the Sunnis would be even less thrilled with the Shia; this would end whatever protection Iran is providing to the world’s minority Shia groups. I’d also wonder if it would be viewed as sufficient for the 12vers; the danger there is that like Osama they might convince themselves it would be so, only to find out they’re horribly wrong.
This is an interesting fantasy discussion. I studied EMP a bit; it would take more than one bomb, and I’m pretty sure it would require a thermonuclear warhead to take out any appreciable fraction of US infrastructure. It would be unpleasant for the economy, but I doubt as many would die, particularly compared to lighting one off in NYC.
But … then … how is Iran supposed to nuke the US from space? The only Middle Eastern nation capable of striking the US with ICBMs is Israel. The only danger to the US is from one sent via the postal service.
Knowing what I know about Iran, a country which can’t even refine its own gasoline, I doubt as they’re anywhere near achieving a plutonium bomb. Much as I respect Herr Spengler in other matters, he’s been saying “time is short” for almost 10 years now.
If you’re thinking strategically, it’s what you would aim for. But, I think terror states want to cause terror. They want everyone to see the big, flashy special effects. At least that’s what I’m holding out hope for because an EMP would be more than just a nail, it would be the coffin.
However, you can’t terrorize people who have no idea what you just did to them.
Iran already has missiles capable of this kind of attack. For an EMP burst, they wouldn’t even have to develop a highly accurate guidance system or heat shield for the warhead. Launching a missile from a surface ship dates back to the 1940s (US launched a captured V-2 from an aircraft carrier deck) and is sometimes referred to as the “Scud in a tub” scenario.
This is one of the places it gets iffy. Ignoring our hardened or underwater retaliatory inventory, if they really want to kill the Great Satan they’ve got to place those warheads in particular locations. Wrong place, wrong altitude, or just plain failure for 1-2 of the minimum 3 needed leaves a lot of America and Americans untouched (although network effects would make that very bad for many), and more than a little angry.
And in any of these scenarios the possibility that our reply will be a Final Solution to the Muslim Question (probably minus those living in the nuclear states of India and the PRC) cannot be dismissed. Check out Richard “Wretchard” Fernandez’s Three Conjectures for much discussion of this concept.
Iran has already demonstrated the ability to launch a small satellite. Sending a nuclear weapon on a lofted trajectory for a high altitude detonation is a lot easier than putting a satellite in orbit or delivering a weapon via ICBM. A nuclear detonation above 200 KM can cause serious EMP effects for hundreds of kilometers radius. Those effects wouldn’t destroy the US but could cause very widespread damage to the electrical and communications infrastructure along with a lot of things attached to them. The direct damage could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars and could require a long time to repair. The economic impacts could easily run into the trillions of dollars. Remember, it was estimated that the 9/11 attacks caused $1 trillion of economic impacts. An EMP attack would cause many times the damage and economic impacts of 9/11. A great deal of our military infrastructure is hardened but much of our civil infrastructure isn’t.
That’s right. A missile designed to produce an EMP burst could be fired just offshore from Israel (or the United States) from a freighter and aimed away from the shore, such that missile defense couldn’t interdict it.
There will be no retaliation if Barack Hussein Obama is controlling the response. Think of Benghazi times a google. Barring a military coup, nothing will be done. Nothing.
Avi Schnurr from the Electronic Infrastructure Security Council http://www.eiscouncil.com/icmdRoot/index.asp gave a very disturbing talk and answered questions at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend recently. There is a video of him discussing this specific threat. I think it’s at David’s Freedom Center or on iTunes. Go forth and view it.
There’s also a very good novel with an EMP explosion as its premise, “One Second After” that came out a couple of years ago. The reality is actually too horrific to contemplate.
That’s why Iran must be stopped.
Avi Schnurr is brilliant. Thanks for mentioning him..
That’s one of Israel’s options against Iran, btw.
the denial of events beyond one’s control becomes more rigid and deeply hidden the greater the fright.
the scenario you report is something too terrifying to acknowledge. if we do not have a leader, whether an intellectul, political or scientific mind, to stand up larger than life and declare this truth, we’re dead. for a long, long, long, time.
So, what do you want us to do about it? Don’t you get it, yet? The last election was all about socialism and isolationism. The people who voted for Obama wanted to maintain an ever-growing social-welfare state and they could care less what happens overseas, especially with Israel. And, since the vast majority of Jews in this country voted for Obama, too, they must not really care that much about Israel either. If they did, they certainly would not have voted for Obama. So if they don’t care, why should I?
I’m pretty much done worrying about this. If the majority of the American public doesn’t care, if the Europeans don’t care, and since Obama and his minions certainly don’t care whether or not Iran gets a nuclear bomb, why should I? And if Israel and Iran are obliterated by nuclear weapons next year, hey, according to Obama those are only “bumps in the road” to “peace” in the Middle East.
I will bet you anything that when Iran gets its nuclear bomb, Obama won’t do a single thing. Nothing. He will make the case that Iran having a nuclear weapon is no different than Pakistan having a nuclear weapon. The mere fact that Iran said that it would USE a nuclear weapon against Israel will be seen by Obama as “all talk,” and that the Iranians are way too pragmatic to actually use a weapon like that. So Obama won’t do a thing and the world will be on the brink of a nuclear war. Hope he’s happy with the results.
And you never hear Obama mention what would happen if an Iranian nuclear missiles unleashes an arms race in the Middle East with other Muslim nations. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, how long before countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt want their own, too? And since the hatred between the Sunni Saudis and the Shia Iranians is almost as bad as the hatred between Iran and Israel, you have the potential here of an arms race growing between some very dangerous nations.
But, hey, with Obama in the White House, I’m sure the United Nations will take care of all of this. “Leading from behind” worked so very well in Libya (with that country now no better than Somalia), that now we can try it on an even larger scale with Iran. Such a great plan. If I were living in Israel right now, I’d be investing in some very deep bomb shelters. They’re going to need them, and soon.
The Iranian leadership calls the US the ‘Great Satan’ and Israel the ‘Little Satan’. Which country do you think they would try to hit first? This given the fact that they know that intercontinental missiles will not work against the US or Israel but that short-range ship-fired missiles will do the EMP trick perfectly against either? Add the fact that the firing small merchant ship could easily be manned by suicide ‘bombers’. Hmm???
That may all be true and you’re probably right, but it will NOT make a difference now. The American people should just come to grips with the fact that Obama just doesn’t care about what happens to either Iran or Israel. He doesn’t want to get involved in another Mideast war, so he certainly will NOT use military force against Iran. Your point is well taken about a surprise attack against this country, and again you’re probably right that Iran would launch such a strike against us. But, again, Obama just doesn’t care. If he doesn’t want to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, he certainly isn’t going to do anything once they have them.
Could Iran launch a sneak attack against the United States? You bet they could. But always remember that Bill Clinton had multiple warnings that al Qaeda was determined to hit us, yet did next to nothing about it. The result? 9/11/2001.
So even though Obama has had multiple warnings about a nuclear-armed Iran, he is still determined to do nothing about it. And what could that lead us to? Maybe a 9/11/2013. It could be that close.
Great comment. I share your indifference. There’s no point in worrying about something we can’t control.
On one issue: you said the UN would take care of all of this. I’d love to see them do it from NYC if Iran or some other nut case country lets loose an EMP. Superstorm Sandy was ‘a bump in the road’, compared to the possible effects of an EMP. The UN needs to go to its second home in Geneva, while there’s still time.
The situation in the Middle East is in an apparent lull state for the layman; though underneath fervent preparations are put into place by various entities. In Turkey Patriot batteries have been placed, and manned by the NATO-German contingent- (Under consideration)-(170 men for 2 Patriot batteries)- Info: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com an extremely reliable professional source, in English and German.
I would advice Mr. Goldman to read that site.
Before definitively engage Iran, Syria has to be dealt with, I guess during the next months the situation will change drastically. Meantime we “hear” that King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia is clinically death….
To make another point very clear, the German military is heavily engaged everywhere in the Middle East, their weapon sales are huge, twice the UK and France put together!
The US under Obama won’t do anything to Iran directly, neither Israel I guess.
Iran will certainly be attacked, though not by the US or Israel as many like to think. Iran won’t attack directly if ever, their proxies are doing the work, as the Gaza mini war showed, and the response was more of a warning.
Germany is like a fox, it can lose the fur, but not the vice! Just this time, under cover and from behind, and having the EU in its pocket and closely collaborating with the Sunni regimes.
The fuel at Bushehr remains under IAEA safeguards, and every single IAEA report states that Iran does not have a reprocessing facility to extract plutonium from these rods. In fact Iran has repeatedly offered to not develop reprocessing capabilities as part of their compromise offers, which the US has refused to acknowledge.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-iran-building-nukes-an-analysis/1877
As for the regime being rational, so far they’ve proven themselves more rational than the US allies in the region. In fact since the Islamic Revolution and under this regime, living standards for Iranians have significantly improved according to Iran’s Human Development Index, one of the best performances over the last 30 years. And that is why multiple polls show that the people of Iran support the regime, and massively support their nuclear program. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php
And, during the Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam was killing over 60,000 Iranians with his US-backed chemical weapons, the Iranians were entitled by law to respond in kind with their own chemical weapons, but they did not do so on moral grounds. Would any other country have shown such restraint?
My name is hass. Juden hass.
As some posters have said, building a plutonium bomb is probably beyond Iran’s capability, however it seems certain that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capability, the question is why? Attacking Israel may be a great political play, making Iran the hero of the ME but carries minimal other benefits. However, having the ability to place a nuclear umbrella over the Arabian Sea so as to deter US intervention in a war to defeat the hated House of Saud and gain control over Iraqi/Saudi oilfields makes a lot of sense. Would the US back off if faced with such a threat? The Iranian experience of us would suggest that in their mind anyway, the US is a paper tiger and would back off. I can promise you that I and many others would fight any move to waste any more American lives defending the loathsome Saudis.
The problem for Israel is that an attack on Iran would make what is now speculative; (an impending Iranian attack on Israel), into a certainty. So logically any Israeli attack has to be decisive, and finish Iran forever, that is, it has to be nuclear and it has to be all out, damaging the program and putting it back a few years will not help and will make the problem worse.
For this reason I do not believe an Israeli attack on Iran is going to happen any time soon. The political aims of Iran have to become a lot clearer before military action is taken, either by the US (NFW) or Israel. Another thing to consider is that an Iranian nuclear weapon is popular right across the Iranian political spectrum, so taking out the mullahs is not going to change anything.
@Roger – as one or more famous Physicist or another has commented, “once the science is settled, the rest is just engineering.” So it is.
Just like some Tom Clancy novel, I wouldn’t doubt these jokers will make undesirables work while exposed to lethal doses of radiation to achieve their goal of a functional, deployable thermonuclear weapon. Count on it. They view the possession of a Nuke as placing them among the real players in the world.
Rescuing the Holy Land from the Zionists is not practical nor political. It is a religious mandate which will bring divine rewards and lasting peace on earth.
The Iranians keep saying these things in public. I do not know why nobody takes them seriously. This is not a joke for them and it is not propoganda.
The IAEA and every intelligence agency on earth agrees that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. There is only one reason for that. Iran must fulfil its historic destiny. The Islamic revolution is not a farce or slogan it is the whole foundation and purpose of the Iranian theocracy. They are bankrupting their whole country against all “rational” explaination because the reasons are not “rational” as we want to understand them.
Spindok,
You may be right that the religious imperative trumps all others, I have my doubts. The fact is that the leadership of Iran (like the leaders of pretty much everywhere else) have all pursued political careers; they have planned, schemed, organized and worked for decades to achieve political power. They have organized and attended meetings, rallies, planning sessions, etc. (most of it mind numbingly boring) and made their plans in a rational and methodical manner. Are we to believe that they are prepared to throw all that away in a nuclear attack on Israel that will certainly be suicidal? Or do they have other aims that they prefer to mask until they are able to strike with a great chance of achieving more power, more wealth and more glory?
Today it is Iran. Tomorrow it wil be someone else equally nasty and unstable.
The genie is out of the bottle. While attempts to curtial Iran are laudable, and I hope they work, they divert attention from a more fundemental and unsettling realization.
The non-proliferation treaty has failed. What do we need to do technologically and politically to live in a post NPT world where nukes will become a commidity item.
To my mind it is like the airplane has been invented and we are trying to stop anyone else from having airplanes. This is bound to fail at some point in the future, so developing effective anti-aircraft technology is just plain sensible.
To an extent I see the Iran issue as a sideshow, albeit an important one. I want to see a discussion where it is acknowledged the NPT has failed and the need to develop means of detection for covert nukes (containers on ships) and range of directed energy or kinetic weapons to target launchers and missiles in flight.
I find it a huge failure of leadership that no-one seems to recognize this reality.
Your comment shows a serious break in logic.
Firstly, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will use them against Israel, who will retaliate. The result will be millions of dead people. This is a very good reason to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The fact that some other actors my try to obtain nukes later does not counter the present problem of Iran obtaining nukes in the very near future.
Secondly, if the US moves now to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, this will act as a deterrent against other rogue states attempting to get nukes in the future. It will not be 100% effective as a deterrent, but it will have some effect.
Thirdly, failing to deter Iran will compel several unstable states to move immediately to obtain nuclear weapons. That would be a bad thing.
Therefore, the best response to the possible future proliferation of nuclear weapons is to deter Iran now.
As it happens, the US and other governments are working at technology to help detect covert nuclear weapons including scanners at ports and in satellites. The US and Israel are developing a variety missile defence systems, some such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling are already deployed. THe leadership does recognize the threat and is doing something about it.
Where is the break in logic? Where did I say I would not be bothered with Iran having nukes? I didn’t, and it is you have a comprehension and vision fail, rather than I having a logic fail.
I said I hope the efforts to prevent Iran getting the bomb succeed. Where did I seem to say otherwise? What was ambiguous?
I also said that someday we won’t notice that someone is working on the bomb. Actually this has already happened with India & Pakistan. The NPT is in effect dead and we are all just dancing round the issue.
I want a discussion that goes beyond dealing with the immediate threat or else we will be here again having the same debate with a diffent player. Over and over again.
The world is getting far more dangeruous than less so. I want to see a policy that realizes that one day we will be faced with an actor who already has the nukes and we have to face down that threat. What tools do we have today other than MAD? Against an irrational actor – none.
I realize that Iran is first of many. How are we to deal with many? Hve this same cycle of discussion and debate over and over again, or do we attempt to develop a foreign policy that can at least be nominally stable between administrations. Long term threats require long term solutions. What is happening with Iran is an attempt at a short term solution.
Iron dome only works against overt threats, not covert threats. Given a few months and some patience I have little doubt all the pieces of a nuke could be smuggled into the US and assembled in a major city and detonated.
One day will will face that threat. Hopefully today we can curtail Iran. Tommorrow against the next actor – who knows.
The doctrine you are seeking is the Truman Doctrine which states “the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” It is just a question of applying it.
The German report above is a beat up due to the Pu240 issue. I think that people will be surprised at how low the casualties will be in an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv, assuming that a warhead gets past the Israeli ABM system. The Iranians are likely to use starter size weapons of 20 kt or so. Given Tel Aviv’s average population density of 7,300 per sq km and the area affected by the 20 psi overpressure of 1.8 sq km, casualties may be in the range of 10,000 to 15,000. Countries are going to find that they are going to need a lot of weapons to have an effect. Unless you use a lot of weapons at the start, all you are going to do is annoy people. It is thought that the Israeli weapons waiting in those submarines south of Iran are 200 kt yield. For the same overpressure, that will affect 8.1 sq km and with Tehran’s population density of 10,300 per sq km, will have casualties of the order of 80,000. Tehran alone will need a lot of ordnance. The Israelis had better have their response airborne before people start talking proportionate response. Otherwise Iran will absorb is losses and start over again but next time with a substantial arsenal, not the first few bombs off the production line.
The leaked ‘Vienna design’ was a two-point, one-point safe, Pu 239 implosion design known to work — of Chinese-Russian-American parentage.
The laptop diagrams were festered with both Korean and Chinese characters — and metric dimensions, IIRC.
The particular design was estimated to yield 50-100 kilotons.
No evidence has ever leaked of any Iranian intent to construct a Little Boy configuration. This, even though the media keep running a gun-bomb up the flag pole.
Anyone beyond sophomore chemistry knows that a gun-bomb uses too many thermal neutrons.
Further, such a scheme can’t be launched by any of the Iranian IRBMs — of which they’re building quite a suite.
The more one listens to our MSM the less one knows.
Firstly, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will use them against Israel, who will retaliate. The result will be millions of dead people. This is a very good reason to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The fact that some other actors my try to obtain nukes later does not counter the present problem of Iran obtaining nukes in the very near future.
Secondly, if the US moves now to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, this will act as a deterrent against other rogue states attempting to get nukes in the future. It will not be 100% effective as a deterrent, but it will have some effect.
Thirdly, failing to deter Iran will compel several unstable states to move immediately to obtain nuclear weapons. That would be a bad thing.
Therefore, the best response to the possible future proliferation of nuclear weapons is to deter Iran now.
As it happens, the US and other governments are working at technology to help detect covert nuclear weapons including scanners at ports and in satellites. The US and Israel are developing a variety missile defence systems, some such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling are already deployed. The leadership does recognize the threat and is doing something about it.
Of course Iran wouldn’t care about its own fate.
After all, if it gets wiped out in retaliation, wouldn’t the survivors make for the “perfect” newer, fresher Palestinian-analogue?
Suddenly, another group of ethnic refugees to complain that they don’t have a homeland, and it’s “all because of Israel”.
-sarcasm on-
No…. surely you don’t mean that. Iran wouldn’t perjure their “declaration” that they are developing nuclear power for peaceful uses only? Oh my goodness, whatever shall we do? The next thing you’re going to tell me is the Benghazi murders weren’t because of a video……..
-sarcasm off-
“Although light water reactors are not designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, the design can produce large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a short period of time.”
Maybe light water reactors weren’t INTENDED to produce weapons-grade plutonium, but they clearly are DESIGNED with that capability. The two clauses in the quoted sentence can’t both be true.
No, those are both correct. Pu is a byproduct. You can’t suppress it if you want to. What happens in a normal fuel cycle is the Pu ends up getting (mostly) burned at the end of the cycle. The reactor doesn’t produce Pu by design, it produces it because that the way nature works. Premature fuel removal is like premature penis removal – you get something that wasn’t intended.
Plutonium is created due to the high neutron absorption cross-section in uranium, specifically 238U -> 239NP -> 239Pu. Having uranium in a nuclear reactor makes plutonium. Plutonium-239 itself has a substantial absorption cross-section and will quickly create unacceptable quantities of 240Pu and 241Pu if left in a reactor. These higher isotopes of plutonium have significant spontaneous fission cross-sections that cause the problems described above.
The comment that light water reactors aren’t designed to produce weapons grade plutonium is because efficient creation of (only) 239Pu for weapons leads to very short stay times in a reactor. Efficient use of the reactor is to run for as long as possible to produce (presumably) electricity. The two functions are diametrically opposed.
One of the best ways of rendering plutonium unsuitable for weapons use is to put it back in a rector. What isn’t consumed will be highly contaminated by undesirable plutonium isotopes. Using a light water reactor on very short fuel cycles (like 30 or 40 days or less) would be highly suspicious.
Short cycling a civilian nuke is highly suspicious, but not a Casus belli. There are many legitimate reasons to off load a new core, although by design, they should run continuously for years and be profitable. A new nuke may have teething problems, bad fuel, bad equipment, and a management level decision, to off load the irradiated core in order to effectively fix the problem (lowered the limited skilled workers dosages), may be required. As discussed in the replies, Joe Stalin’s power reactors were very good at making bomb fuel, electricity was a by product. The Chernobyl type reactors, graphite moderated, were inherently more dangerous. The US opted for light water moderation for this reason; our nukes are not good at making bomb fuel( although they can if difficult processing is used).
It is for this reason that fuel cycle openness is mandatory. All nations have the right to use technology to better their citizen’s lives. No nation has the right to threaten its neighbor with annihilation, while pursuing secret fission technologies, as Iran has repeated done to Israel. One A bomb can destroy tiny Israel. Thus this Peek-a-boo nuclear inspection policy by Iran, or any nation, threatens world peace. The global nonproliferation policy is not meant to create a US – USSR monopoly on weapons. It is meant to save mankind from extinction.
IIRC, the Iranians complained that Russian fuel assemblies were defective virtually from the get-go.
THAT’S why they needed to refuel Bushehr so soon.
There’s much wickedness afoot, but this is not it.
BTW, even ninety-days is too long to produce weapons grade Pu 239. By that point, it’s already stuffed with ruinous levels of Pu 240 and Pu 241.
The Iranians aren’t that dumb.
No, I’m afraid that the real nightmare lies with their swimming pool / research reactors.
They have them — one since 1978.
They’re the reason that Tehran needs HEU. Swimming-pool research oriented reactors can’t get by with LEU. They’re just too small to reach criticality.
A typical design may use 40% HEU. At such levels, the system can be powered up and down at will. It will not be dogged down by neutron poisons.
And, yes, the Iranians know all of this. It’s only news to the general public — which is fed like mushrooms on all atomic matters.
When hostile powers like Iran already know the facts of death — it serves no purpose to manipulate the American public — other than letting the situation fester until it reaches September 3, 1939 proportions.
With Benghazi-gate, Syria-gate and Cairo-gate the West is being led blinded into an Augean ammo bunker.
I wonder how much North Korea is helping out the Iranians since tNorth Korea’s bomb is a plutonium type? Could not North Korea help Iran solve the implosion trigger problem? Does anyone know if it is true that Iran is building a missile base in Venezuela?
This fits in with my comments above.
What if Iran is trading nuclear weapons technology for a missile base? It’s not out of the question and we seem to be losing allies in South America as it is. What it Venezula can use a nuclear stick force other countries to continue to sever ties.
Focussing just on Iran will cause us to miss the bigger picture and we will be the worse for it. The more I think about it the bleaker it looks.
To do that, North Korea would have to have a working implosion trigger of its own. Professor Ron Flemming of the University of Michigan analyzed the North Korean test and came to the conclusion that it was actually a gun-type device, which explains why it fizzled. See, the reason plutonium can’t be used in a working gun-type device is not that it won’t achieve supercriticality, but rather that it will go supercritical too early, preventing the optimum assembly from being achieved. It will still produce a larger explosion than a conventional thermobaric bomb, but it’s not worth the plutonium to produce what is, in effect, a very large dirty bomb.
What about their 2nd test in 2009? It was reported to be successful … at least by the Russians, who like reasonably distant disorder to drive up the price of oil.
Strategic Communications: How NATO Shapes and Manipulates Public Opinion November 28, 2012
http://publicintelligence.net/nato-stratcom-shaping-public-opinion/
Why don’t…or, haven’t we bombed these fanatics already. Do we have to go to the fiscal..er..I mean nuclear cliff everytime?
Get it over with already.
The Int community does not care that Iran get nukes.They will not be able to contain Iran either.
Pu 238 is the most toxic substance, 10 milligrams inhalated will kill a person in 30 days.So for Iran mad govt it is not necessary to get PU 241 the highest enrichment grade necessary to make a fission bomb.It is enough to fill a regular missile head with a few kilos of PU 238 and to send it to Israel among a volley of other rockets to kill millions of israelis by toxic radioactivity.
This is the ” dirty ” bomb threat and it can be also delivered to terrorists groups.The rationality aspect of Iran govt.is a non starter game ; they don’t care for their own survival, they have a vast territory and they are willing to sacrifice a large chunk of their population , because they know Israel is a tiger paper wich will not launch a preemptive strike.For Iran aggressive govt all the odds are in their favor.Obama won’t move a finger, and Israel is frozen in its “morality” morass.All rationalization attempts are a loss of time : Any criminal govt or organization is ” rational ” meaning they will act rationally to achieve their criminal goals.Nazims, fascism, communism, have amply proven that they can act rationally and still reach their criminal goals.The Mafia mobsters do also act rationally and they are still around after a century of activity, The common error in the western minds is to translate rationality into moderation.Those are two separate cconcepts.Rationality can be useful both for the arch.criminal and for the distinguished Yale educated lawyer.
The technique required to make and extract Pu 238 is miles beyond making Pu 239 — the true bomb-grade explosive.
Google around.
Your scenario: epic fail.
Here’s a link that goes into the Pu 238 details.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tdusXIvyLFQ#!
Even the United States is running out of Pu 238 — it’s that difficult/ expensive to isolate.
I wonder sometimes if all of this is overblown. We are worried about these people actually building an atomic bomb and putting it on a long range missile. These same people have not even mastered the art of photoshop.
In another hilarious press release the Iranians claim to have invented a sophisticated vertical takeoff drone. The photo is directly lifted from one taken of a Japanese project with a few background details badly photoshopped out.
http://www.israellycool.com/2012/11/29/irans-shiny-new-fake-drone/
You can’t make this stuff up.
I’ll grant you that their media ops look like something from Duck Soup….
But, the Persians aren’t Arabs.
And, in fact, they’ve already launched test IRBMs out into the Indian Ocean.
Needless to say, the Israeli government has lent a hand, from time to time, so that anti-regime elements can foul-up the Iranian missile development program.
IIRC, they’ve lost a couple of IRGC generals in the recent past — on inspection of a next generation hypergolically fueled rocket scheme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqT90VmYgEU
This footage is from the Soviet era (equivalent) project.
Hypergolic propellants flow at temperatures above their auto-ignition points. In short, they ignite upon mixing.
The Lunar Module, of Apollo fame, used hypergolics: Aerozine 50 and dinitrogen tetroxide. Aerozine 50 = 50% hydrazine and 50% unsymetrical dimethyl hydrazine. (UDMH) These propellants were chosen because there could be no acceptance of ignition failure.
For military missiles, the ability to stay fueled, constantly, made hypergolic fuels like Aerozine 50 extremely attractive. This is why the Titan II replaced Atlas.
The Soviet/Russian SS18 used the Aerozine 50 scheme.
And so, it was during the Iranian attempt to replicate the American and Soviet technology that she lost critical military-technical leaders.
BTW, Brezhnev was the top Communist placed in charge of investigating their 1960 disaster. It made him a national figure within the Party. (If you skip towards the end of the clip, you can just view the fire. Brezhnev pops up for a few seconds in the middle of the video.)
Since the use of hypergolic propellants is costly — and exclusively a military propellant — you can take it to the bank that Iran is progressing towards their own Titan II scheme. Once mastered, it would provide them with ICBM, not just IRBM, capability.
The world is on notice.
Say, are you reading any of this in the MSM?
Thought so.
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7187#more-7187
Benghazi Explained by Douglass J. Hagmann and ‘Intelligence Insider’
Excuse me? The Obama administration is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Saudis hate and fear. The Saudis want the US to unleash Israel on Iran, which the Obama administration doesn’t want.
Thanks for your comments about my minor Afghan/Iraq time in a previous thread. Sorry I did not respond until today.
With all due respect, I don’t know why Douglass J. Hagmann should be considered a good source. From what I understand he’s a PI who has puffed himself up via his (rather grandiosely named) Northeast Intelligence Network website. I would say he is significantly less reliable than Debka.
Last post — End of Thread for me here. Please read this all Spengler fans and forward the link to anyone you know in military and other related circles. Obama is turning NATO and the U.S. military into Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s private army. And Morsi and Erdogan are playing him like a fiddle, while the Russians are watching all of it and are waiting for the moment to go public with their own intelligence about Fast and Furious po Arabski and how many of the dangerous MANPADS capable of shooting down civilian airliners on approach have ‘leaked’ out of Libya and Syria into the hands of Al-Qaeda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIzOma9Pyv8
December 21st is coming…
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7193
Benghazi Explained by “Intelligence Insider” Part II: The Bigger Picture
EOT
The known implosion design leaked to the press, the ‘Vienna laptop’ scheme, is of a plutonium bomb.
So it’s no surprise that at some point the HEU that the mullahs are building up will be converted over to plutonium.
The higher the enrichment, the easier it becomes to work up some smallish converter reactor — an over grown research reactor would suffice.
Of course, none of the Iranian project paths addresses any of the requirements for a power reactor. Those are much more challenging than a converter reactor.
Those who think that an Iranian EMP attack on the U.S. is unlikely due to the threat of retaliation by survivable nuclear forces should consider the possibility that 1. Iran many camouflage its involvement in the attack; or, 2. There may come a time when the current Iran regime is going down and its leaders know they will soon have an appointment with the hangman. A Shia Gotterdammerung might then seem to them as quite the best alternative.
Hmmm, in the first scenario, do you think they’re likely to “you bet your life” that the Great Satan wouldn’t slag Tehran and, say, their single refinery complex plus their distillate import facilities on either general principles or to forestall followup attacks from a sworn enemy since 1979?
“Hmmm, in the first scenario, do you think they’re likely to “you bet your life” …”
Rather hard to say, given their use human wave attacks in the Iran/Iraq war after they had essentially expelled Iraq from Iranian soil, their brazen use of EFPs and other terrorism against US forces in Iraq as early as 2006, when Bush was still depicted as a “Texas mad bomber” type, and their apparent involvement in the attempted assassination of the KSA ambassador to the US.
I do know that I don’t want to bet the lives of my family as well as millions of American lives on the mullahs making rational foreign policy calculations similar to those of a Canadian fisheries official in negotiations with the US over salmon hatcheries.
There is more innocent explanation for early removal of fuel rods from Bushehr reactor: emergency shutdown of it due fear of explosion after loose parts were found in reactor vessel. See
debka.com/article/22577/Alarm-in-Tehran-and-Moscow-over-Bushehr-nuclear-reactor’s-near-explosion-in-mid-October