Re: Iran will be 'reported' to UNSC


Count 1 wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1138738209.869045.262560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1138729703.962104.195530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1138725552.534837.178560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1138722483.804716.232160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> news:1138718891.962358.317700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > ....to be followed by a stern wagging of the finger and
> deep
> > > > > brow
> > > > > > > > > furrowing.
> > > > > > > > > > > If further compliance isn't forth coming the UNSC and
> the
> > > IAEA
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > fold
> > > > > > > > > > > their arms and stomp their feet.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if these firm responses will give anyone
> comfort
> > > when
> > > > > Tel
> > > > > > > Aviv
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > vapourized by a suitcase nuke stamped 'Made in Iran'?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Just a quibble. A suitcase nuke can't vaporize Tel Aviv.
> > > Maybe
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > much as 9 square blocks destroyed - .25 "vaporized".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ohhh, I'm sure those Mullah's can crack the problem and
> figure
> > > out
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > build one that could do the job! They are experts on the
> Quran,
> > > > > > > afterall.
> > > > > > > > > Heck, with those kinds of credentials....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/nukes.htm
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hardly an existential threat.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was employing hyperbole.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I bet he asks for a raise. :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However if during Iran's next military parade
> > > > > > > > > there's a column of marching men with big shiny metal
> suitcases
> > > > > adorned
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > banners reading "For the destruction of Israel" then we'll
> > > explore
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > further.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Definately an act of war though for
> > > > > > > > > > which Israel could respond at least a 100 times over.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll let them know they have your approval. The rest of us
> are
> > > > > trying to
> > > > > > > > > avert a nuclear detonation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By threatening conventional (and possibly nuclear) ones?
> Seems
> > > like
> > > > > > > > unclear thinking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect your incapacity to discern clear thinking is based on
> your
> > > > > need to
> > > > > > > mitigate Iranian responsibility for this growing diplomatic
> crisis
> > > and
> > > > > > > instead focus solely on the international communities response.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No one...repeat **no one**- involved in negotiations with Iran
> is
> > > > > > > threatening even conventional detonations, much less nuclear
> ones.
> > > Those
> > > > > > > 'threats' simply don't exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In fact the story I linked to discussed the slow, small step
> > > diplomacy
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > has come to characterize this situation. After all these years
> they
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > even get a referral, they're limited to making a 'report'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In roughly the last 36 hours Iran has granted courtesy access to
> the
> > > > > > remaining non-nuclear military site and turned over the uranium
> > > (bomb?)
> > > > > > casting papers they received from Pakistan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So diplomacy does work, eh?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At this rate, by the time the UNSC meets about all they'll have to
> do
> > > > > > is drop their trousers and jerk off to fantasies about their own
> > > > > > nuclear arsenals. Hopefully Aunt Beeb will interrupt them before
> > > they
> > > > > > mess up the conference table. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > It is interesting see how much Iran really does fear the UNSC. I
> have no
> > > > > idea where that comes from.
> > > >
> > > > Sure. Forgot Iraq already?
> > >
> > > No. Have you forgotten that the UNSC had nothing to do with invading
> Iraq?
> >
> > Right... It was part of the US's process though. And when it didn't
> > work out the anti-UN propaganda fired up, the US claimed the UNSC
> > resolution support invading, and it went ahead and attacked anyway.
> >
> > No, I haven't forgotten the UNSC charade.
>
> Then you can understand why I can't understand why iran is scared of the
> UNSC.
>
>
>
> > > > > However Iran also continues to deny interviews
> > > > > to key personnell and Baradei continues to state that after three
> years
> > > he
> > > > > is still not ready to make a judgement on the peaceful nature of
> their
> > > > > nuclear program. So it aint' all roses.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder what the value was of the information they turned over?
> > > Obviously
> > > > > not much as it hasn't made a ripple...yet.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 22 January 2006 the Iranian chief negotiator stated what he thought
> > > > it was worth.
> > > >
> > > > "If you can find anyone in the world who can make a bomb with one and
> a
> > > > half pages, we will cover their whole body with gold,"
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2006/1/23/24A2C433-6E5F-4A49-BA49-7BBEFC8B9078.html
> > >
> > > Odd. He made that comment 9 days ago, roughly 216 hours. I wonder what
> they
> > > were doing with it for those other 180 hours.
> > >
> >
> > Ha, ha, ha!
>
> Probably doing the same thing they were doing with Natanz for 18 years -
> concealing its existence.
>
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But ... you know .... whatever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Iran does have a 'National Security' you know."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And no one - repeat **no one** - is denying them that. They are
> > > simply
> > > > > > > trying to make sure Iran is living up to its international
> > > agreements
> > > > > > > regarding nuclear weapon research and development. Iran has
> created
> > > this
> > > > > > > situation by not living up to its obligations and continuing to
> be
> > > less
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > fully cooperative with the IAEA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those international agreements which permit them to enrich
> uranium,
> > > > > > correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, not specifically. Article IV is interpreted as giving all
> parties to
> > > the
> > > > > NPT the right to enrich uranium. However no such specifc permission
> > > exists.
> > > >
> > > > Anything "interpreted as" denying it?
> > > >
> > > > > Personally I think Article II says Iran - in fact all non-nuclear
> > > parties -
> > > > > cannot engage in any dual-use enrichment activity;
> > > >
> > > > Then I'd keep IAEA personnel on-site at the enrichment facilities as
> > > > long as it seemed prudent. Wouldn't want to tempt the Iranians
> beyond
> > > > their ability to resist. :-)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Article II
> > > > >
> > > > > Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to
> > > receive
> > > > > the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or
> other
> > > > > nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or
> explosive
> > > > > devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise
> acquire
> > > > > nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek
> or
> > > > > receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or
> other
> > > > > nuclear explosive devices.
> > > > > ***
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the reasons Iran raises so much suspicion is their insistence
> on
> > > > > using a form of uranium enrichment which can also be used to make
> bomb
> > > grade
> > > > > material.
> > > >
> > > > Um, is there a "form of uranium enrichment" which cannot be so used?
> > >
> > > Pardon me - I should have said a form of nuclear power dependent on
> uranium
> > > enrichment. Candu reactors are powered by uranium dioxide which is
> derived
> > > from yellocake in a chemical process. From mining to fuel there is not
> even
> > > the potential for bomb grade material to be developed.
> >
> > I love Candu reactors. Compact package that takes in unenriched
> > uranium in one end and produces power and plutonium out the other. If
> > you want the most concealable, simple way of producing bomb grade
> > fissibles that's the way to go. :-)
>
> A candu reactor doesn't make 'bomb grade' plutonium. It makes reactor grade
> plutonium with higher concetrations of Pu-239 making it theoretically easier
> to process the plutonium to bomb grade.

I don't have at hand the isotopic distribution of Plutonium produced by
the candu reactor. I think I know that the Plutonium is produced in
such a way that only a relatively simple Plutonium extraction process
(not an enrichment one) is required to access the bomb grade material.

> However this is still a preferable
> situation, as nuclear bombs need both enriched uranium and plutonium, and
> the Candu design means you don't need enriched uranium.

Plutonium alone makes dandy bomb.

>
> A current 'sticking point' with Iran and Russia is that Iran doesn't want to
> ship the spent fuel from the Bushehr plant back to Russia.
>
> Now what would Iran want with plutonium that has no role to play in a
> civilian nuclear power project?
>

Maybe different reactor designs which burn Plutonium? It is a more
efficient power source than Uranium after all.

But seriously, I'd keep an eye on that Plutonium thingy.

>
> > > > Would Canada and/or the US be willing to donate such facilities in
> > > > exchange for scrapping the centrifuges?
> > >
> > > I suspect Canada would. We've sold Candu reactors to several countries.
> A
> > > few years ago a story surfaced about an Iranian official claiming they
> were
> > > building a heavy water reactor based on the Candu design, but Canada
> denied
> > > we were selling Iran anything.
> > >
> >
> > See above re: plutonium as a waster product of Candu reactors. The
> > IAEA might want to follow up on this one.
>
> This one what? All Candu reactors operate with IAEA monitoring equipment.
>

But would candu copies?

>
> > > > > I think Article II can be interpreted as saying dual-use
> > > > > technology is a violation. But that's another discussion.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not another discussion in this context. Dual-use talks to
> > > > the capabilities of the technology not the actual use of the
> > > > technology, one usage of which may be restricted.
> > > > Ie, it doesn't prohibit dual-use technology but dual using of
> > > > technology. If your interpretation is correct.
> > >
> > > I admit its a grey area. However given the options available to
> countries to
> > > generate nuclear power while not producing material useful in nuclear
> bombs
> > > I don't think such an interpretation is a big stretch. Remember, the
> > > treaties primary purpose is to stop nuclear proliferation. Its not to
> define
> > > how countries generate nuclear power.
> > >
> >
> > That would be "nuclear *weapons* proliferation".
>
> You get the point.
>
>
> > > > > Additionally, Iran doesn't have the uranium reserves to sustain a
> long
> > > term
> > > > > civilian nuclear power project. They'll have to rely on imports.
> > > >
> > > > Niger's in the market I understand. :-)
> > >
> > > As is Canada and Australia, not to mention Russia. But the point
> remains,
> > > Iran's argument that it needs to own and manage its own domestic uranium
> > > enrichment capacity so as to not be 'dependent' on other nations is
> > > bull***.
> >
> > I'm not sure. Most uranium production figures are just that - uranium
> > production figures. I don't know how much uranium Iran could produce
> > on it's own. It's not yet time for it to try after all.
> >
> > This seems to summarize, roughly, what is known about Iranian
> > production capabilities in 1999:
> >
> > Exploratory work has been undertaken for more than twenty years and a
> > number of small prospects have been defined. In recent years the
> > Exploration Division of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran has been
> > active at several locations in the centre and north-west of the
> > country.
> >
> > Reasonably assured resources (in-situ) amount to 491 tonnes, with a
> > further 876 tonnes of additional resources (EAR-I), both recoverable at
> > US$ 80-130/kgU. Undiscovered conventional resources consist of 4 500
> > tonnes in category EAR-II, plus 5 000 tonnes of speculative resources,
> > both recoverable at less than US$ 130/kgU.
> >
> >
> http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/uranium/uranium.asp
> >
> > These 10,900 tons are about 15-20% of total worldwide yearly demand
> > forecast for 2015.
> >
> > Also on the above site is a chart showing substantial reserves in Asia.
> > Perhaps the Iranian strategic planning anticipates bartering oil for
> > uranium with the Chinese.
> >
> > > They will have to be dependent on other nations, and they know it.
> > > All we're saying is, instead of importing the ore, dismantle the
> expensive
> > > and controversial centrifuges and import the fuel instead.
> > >
> > > What's the big deal?
> >
> > Pride maybe.
>
> That's not a big deal. That's a petty and small deal. Iran may just have to
> swallow its pride on this one. Punishment for 18 years of lies.

Maybe. But as you know punishment for lying in the international
arena is virtually unheard of. :-)

.

Quantcast