Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No nation is a true demoncracy thus my reason for saying democracy.Israel is far from being a true democracyTrue colors.That's certainly up for debate.
), would not be so willing to use antisemites.
Explain the weakness and make sure you include your knowledge on HEU production. Thanks in advance.Kalam, I believe that Si Modo knows that his argument is extremely weak.
So he is just saying anything to cover up his lack of knowledge on the issues.
Heck, he is the guy who thinks Mr Fitnuts is an intellectual
S. Aftergood, FAS (no link, email)A.Q. KHAN DISCUSSES PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM
Pakistan was ready to test a nuclear weapon just six years after it first began to enrich uranium, according to A.Q. Khan, the architect of the Pakistani nuclear program and an infamous proliferator of nuclear weapons designs and technology.
"It was 6 April 1978 when we achieved our first centrifugal enrichment of uranium," Khan recalled in a chatty, wide-ranging interview with Pakistani television (pdf) last week. "We had achieved 90 percent [enrichment] by early 1983."
"I wrote a letter to General Zia on 10 December 1984, telling him that the weapon was ready and that we could detonate it on a notice of one week," Khan said.
In addition to a timeline for the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, the Khan interview discusses the costs and logistics involved, and his successful efforts to evade export controls. "They could not outmaneuver us, as we remained a step ahead always," he said.
The interview also provides "interesting information about Pakistan's supply chains, which he says were the same for Iran and Libya as well," said Ivanka Barzashka, an FAS researcher who is studying the proliferation of centrifuge technology.
The interview with A.Q. Khan, who was recently released from house arrest, was broadcast in Karachi on August 31. It was helpfully translated from the Urdu by the DNI Open Source Center. The translated interview has not been publicly released, but a copy was obtained by Secrecy News. See "Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan Discusses Nuclear Program in TV Talk Show," Aaj News Television, August 31, 2009
Here is a link to the interview, though: Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan Discusses Nuclear Program in TV Talk Show
So, the public first became aware of uranium enrichment activities at Natanz in 2002. It's seven years later, and the Iranians aren't slackers.
Promoting and supporting nuclear arms non-proliferation are in the security interests of most of the world. An increase in the number of nuclear-armed nations increases the risk of those weapons actually being used and of nuclear weapons and material falling into the hands of extremists; and it increases other nations desire to develop nuclear weapons for deterrent. In a post Cold War world, new players in the nuclear arms race have emerged, notably North Korea and Iran. While there is no evidence that Iran has developed a weapon; there is significant evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion that Iran is moving toward becoming a nuclear-armed state. Preventing Irans progress in this area is a high priority in US foreign affairs.
As a non-nuclear weapons signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to research, develop, and produce nuclear energy and technology for peaceful purposes. With this right comes the responsibility to disclose fully all activities involving nuclear material to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran has built a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and Iran claims that their enrichment activities are for nuclear energy and research, not for producing weapons-grade uranium. However, there are questions concerning Irans enrichment activities.
Uranium enrichment is a stagewise operation where the enrichment capacity and capability of the facility determine how many stages (centrifuges) the facility will require. There is no significant civilian need for highly enriched uranium (HEU, >20% U-235), thus one would assume that any nation interested in peaceful uses of nuclear material would be interested in producing only low-enriched uranium (LEU, 20%>%U-235>0.7%). As there currently is no shortage of LEU in the world market, the feasibility of constructing new enrichment capacity seems economically unattractive. The number of centrifuges Iran has operating at Natanz is greater than 1,600 and Iran claims to have a total of 6,000 centrifuges. Natanz is capable of producing HEU; there is reasonable suspicion that this facility has been built to produce HEU. The fact that Iran has been less than transparent about their enrichment activities to the IAEA further supports this reasonable suspicion.
Although Iran denies any interest in developing nuclear weapons, its activities at Natanz and lack of transparency are inconsistent with its claims. To date, Iran has rejected international efforts to restrict their enrichment activities. The international community has imposed sanctions and offered incentives, yet Iran continues its enrichment activities. More specific incentives (US proposed Global Uranium Fuel Bank) combined with possible additional and harsher sanctions (those recently proposed by Congress) must be considered in future negotiations. The US has requested that Iran participate in negotiations by this autumn; the ultimate goal of these negotiations is to limit Irans enrichment activities. Their agreement to participate in these talks will be a positive change in Irans tactics. However, if Iran refuses to participate, most of the groundwork for harsher sanctions has been put into place by Congress last month. All nations must be creative and more specific in proposed incentives and sanctions than they have been in the past, since preventing Irans continued progress toward becoming a nuclear-armed state is a high security interest of the world.
There is no rational need for Iran to produce HEU in the capacity at Natanz, let alone at a new facility, unless their production is for weapons. Combine that with their obfuscation of IAEA inspections for years, it is no quantum leap nor even a cricket's hopscotch leap to know their HEU production is for weapons.
I have no interest in such childish bullshit you just demonstrated. Be an honest broker in discussion. If you don't fuck with my words, I won't fuck with yours. Deal?
There is no rational need for Iran to produce HEU in the capacity at Natanz, let alone at a new facility, unless their production is for weapons. Combine that with their obfuscation of IAEA inspections for years, it is no quantum leap nor even a cricket's hopscotch leap to know their HEU production is for weapons.
That doesn't seem to be an issue...
"But according to interviews with a State Department official, Washington is almost certain that all the LEU particles found in Iran originated in Pakistan and believes that any further discoveries of undeclared Iranian-produced LEU would likely reveal previously concealed P-1 experiments, but no similar P-2 experiments.
ElBaradei reported in September 2005 that “most” HEU particles found in Iran by agency inspectors came from imported centrifuge components. Both the source in Vienna and a State Department source says that, for all practical purposes, the HEU issue has been resolved."
Questions Surround Iran’s Nuclear Program | Arms Control Association
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs
I have no interest in such childish bullshit you just demonstrated. Be an honest broker in discussion. If you don't fuck with my words, I won't fuck with yours. Deal?
Whatever you want.
Kalam, I believe that Si Modo knows that his argument is extremely weak.
So he is just saying anything to cover up his lack of knowledge on the issues.
Heck, he is the guy who thinks Mr Fitnuts is an intellectual
The second article is about two months old. Why, has the situation changed drastically since then?There is no rational need for Iran to produce HEU in the capacity at Natanz, let alone at a new facility, unless their production is for weapons. Combine that with their obfuscation of IAEA inspections for years, it is no quantum leap nor even a cricket's hopscotch leap to know their HEU production is for weapons.
That doesn't seem to be an issue...
"But according to interviews with a State Department official, Washington is almost certain that all the LEU particles found in Iran originated in Pakistan and believes that any further discoveries of undeclared Iranian-produced LEU would likely reveal previously concealed P-1 experiments, but no similar P-2 experiments.
ElBaradei reported in September 2005 that most HEU particles found in Iran by agency inspectors came from imported centrifuge components. Both the source in Vienna and a State Department source says that, for all practical purposes, the HEU issue has been resolved."
Questions Surround Iranâs Nuclear Program | Arms Control Association
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs
I have no interest in such childish bullshit you just demonstrated. Be an honest broker in discussion. If you don't fuck with my words, I won't fuck with yours. Deal?
Whatever you want.
Heck, he is the guy who thinks Mr Fitnuts is an intellectual
Bullshit Newspeak.True colors.
I've made no attempt to hide my disdain for the Israeli government. Why you're just picking up on it now, I don't know. It seems self-evident to me that a country with apartheid-like policies cannot be considered a "democracy."
Exactly. Once nukes are online, there is no way of reversing that any longer.Iraq, at the height of Saddam's power, was the mightiest armed force in that part of the world. Yet in a matter of a blink of an eye, they were defeated and had their forces surrendering to fucking camera crews.
Iran would fold like a cheap suit. It would crumble like lib logic.
The point of taking out their nuclear weapons-making capability before it could go "on line" is to make sure that those fucktards running that nation don't get to play with powers they are far too irrational to possess. And there would be no invasion needed to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons production threat. And Iran and its military would never dream of taking on the military might of the US especially when we have forces and arms right next door.
First of all, Si modo is no 'he'; secondly if Sunni is going to make a claim as to what I think, then he better be able to back it up. I alone am the supreme authority on my views.Heck, he is the guy who thinks Mr Fitnuts is an intellectual
I hope you're joking.
Another more up-to-date article:
IAEA finds no weapons-grade enriched uranium in Iran_English_Xinhua
I'm aware of this. Didn't you post on USPOL?First of all, Si modo is no 'he';
...But, I can certainly understand how radical Muslims would want to deflect the topic away from Iran's nuclear weapons proliferation and violations of the NPT.
Kalam said:Another more up-to-date article:
IAEA finds no weapons-grade enriched uranium in Iran_English_Xinhua
Thank you. From your source:Another more up-to-date article:
IAEA finds no weapons-grade enriched uranium in Iran_English_Xinhua
....
In a report submitted on Thursday to the United Nations Security Council, Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the IAEA, said Iran was still refusing to fulfill the UN's requirement of stopping its uranium enrichment activity.
....
Iraq, at the height of Saddam's power, was the mightiest armed force in that part of the world. Yet in a matter of a blink of an eye, they were defeated and had their forces surrendering to fucking camera crews.
Iran would fold like a cheap suit. It would crumble like lib logic.
The point of taking out their nuclear weapons-making capability before it could go "on line" is to make sure that those fucktards running that nation don't get to play with powers they are far too irrational to possess. And there would be no invasion needed to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons production threat. And Iran and its military would never dream of taking on the military might of the US especially when we have forces and arms right next door.
Iran will bring herself down eventually. Her people are fed up with the bullshit. We, the world, need to address the acute situation of their nuclear weapons development, however; and that is our only interest AND an obligation of all signatory states of the NPT (most of the world except for less than a handful of states).Iraq, at the height of Saddam's power, was the mightiest armed force in that part of the world. Yet in a matter of a blink of an eye, they were defeated and had their forces surrendering to fucking camera crews.
Iran would fold like a cheap suit. It would crumble like lib logic.
The point of taking out their nuclear weapons-making capability before it could go "on line" is to make sure that those fucktards running that nation don't get to play with powers they are far too irrational to possess. And there would be no invasion needed to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons production threat. And Iran and its military would never dream of taking on the military might of the US especially when we have forces and arms right next door.
I agree to this whole-heartedly. But with the Caviat of there is One in power in this Country that sympathesizes with the plight of those in power in Iran, just as a few predecessors befor him had (Jimmah Catah, Namely)...
And that would be Obama. He has NO intention of doing anything, and is only playing LIP-Service to the Continuation to what Jimmah started in the first place.
The exact same policies have come back to haunt us...
And many on this board think it's Grand, and make the same worn-tired excuses that were fronted even back in 1979.
IRAN MUST be Taken out to end this quagmire of Liberal creation from the 1970's.
Sorry you Statist Liberals. I think 3 decades of failed horseshit is long enough.
Time to put up or shut up, and IRAN goes DOWN.
What I said was that Israel could do it as our surrogate (if we enable them to fly over Iraq); or WE could do it by ourselves (with the added benefit that WE have bunker-buster type bombs capable of getting the buried hardened targets); OR that neither of the above happens (i.e., nobody does it) and Iran ends up as a nation with nukes.
And if we strike the Iranian sites and destroy their nuclear weapons-making capacity, we would be doing it from on high, not with ground troops, stupid. If you think Iran is then going to go all bat-shit crazy and send their ineffective troops up against ANYBODY, you're mistaken.
