Iran's Nuclear Program May Have Military Dimensions

How about the IAEA report, and the report of the finding of nuclear weapons documents? Or will you dismiss their work as Iran itself has? :shrug:

One wonders: since we cannot - by your word - trust the IAEA, and we cannot - by our sanity - trust the Iranian government, who is left to report on the veracity of these accusations?

Who, really, is left?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You will have to point me to exactly which report you are referring to?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

straw dog, there are two types of heavy water production techniques, light water, which is easier in every way but it cant be used in nuclear weapons but works perfectly well in a reactor. And heavy water which is meant specifically for the construction of nuclear weaponry.

The fact is that Iran chose heavy water over light water, and i can pretty much tell you that there is a reason behind it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fair enough, but there are plenty other applications (medical, etc) including research, involving heavy water.

 

You don't invest billions in a nuclear reactor just to do medical research.

 

this is from a country that cares so little about its people that it requires aid just to FEED THEM. Do you honestly think they give a crap if an Iranian got a boo-boo?


Strawdog, if they need aspirin they jsut whine how the US is cutting off their supplies and doing mean things to them and they get some god damned aspirin.

Strawdog youd be a fool to think that Iran is only interested in making heavy water to cure disease.

 

Where do you get your nonsense info from?

 

Why do other (non dreaded Muslim) nations do it then?

 

because they dont make it quite so obvious that they are going to nuke us asap.

The sad thing they fail to realize is that the second they launch a nuke, we can match them 1000 to 1.

 

Heavy water reactors are used almost exclusively for producing power and bomb fuel.

Until recently (when the AQ Khan network disseminated centrifuge technology), heavy water reactors were the main option for states seeking nuclear arsenals. This is because they work with natural, non-enriched Uranium. This was the approach that Israel, Pakistan and India all used to go nuclear, and played a big role in North Korea's program as well. Although a few countries like Canada do make use of heavy water reactors today only for power generation, I can't think of a single example of a state making the initial investments in their own designs that wasn't primarily interested in the plutonium for weapons (Canada started their program as part of the Manhattan Project).

And let's recall that Iran saw fit to bomb Iraq's "peaceful uses only" research reactor, before Israel came around to finish it off. So they don't have a lot of precedent to stand on, here.

 

When did they say or explicitly indicate they would nuke Israel? I wager my fortune that you don`t have a shred of evidence to support that statement.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, your sentiment is very much the Israeli party line. They have threatened Iran for decades. Perhaps it would make more sense if Iran does pursue nukes to protect itself from Israeli aggression?

 

Yes, that is correct. However, what is seldom stated, is that Iran has publicly, and on numerous occasions, explicitly stated that apart from providing fuel, the heavy water facility would "serve medical, agricultural and scientific needs".
Why is that so hard to swallow? Note, no justification is required from Israel. :m:

Interestingly, Iraq`s light water reactor was also branded a program for creating nukes at the time. The ragheads just can win eh? Light, Heavy, Medium? (with or without WMD)

To reiterate the context, of your statement above, just in case you are implying that Iran aggressively attacked Iraq, Iraq initiated this war unprovoked, and Iran in self defense, went to war and, targeted many strategic installations, including the reactor.

(http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/26/iran.nuclear/index.html)

 

Who said it was hard to swallow? I have no doubt that they'll use it for those purposes as well.

But that's not exclusive of using it to create Plutonium for bombs.

These are the exact same things India and Pakistan said about their heavy water reactors, up until they'd used them to produce sufficient Plutonium to build working nuclear weapons.

Which is exactly what it was, and why Iran bombed it.

There's no such thing as "medium water." And just about any reactor, light water or whatever, can be employed for weapons purposes. The specific type of light water reactor Iraq purchased was suspicious in that regard (not all light water reactors are the same).

But heavy water reactors pose a greater proliferation risk, for several reasons. The main one being that they do not require enriched Uranium to work, and so can bypass IAEA safeguards on the market in enriched Uranium.

So what? The point is exactly that said reactor - which was less of a proliferation risk than the one Iran is after - was a strategic installation, worth bombing to keep out of enemy hands.

And if that's the case, why should any of Iran's enemies be mollified by Iranian assurances on its uses?

 

That is a fair enough statement.

Joke. :m:

Yes, that seems about right.

Just one, of many, strategic installations attacked in a defensive capacity.

So then, following that line of though, Iran should develop nukes asap, as a deterrent against persistent Israeli threats?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No trouble.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1110835.html

(Though, if your position is pre-conceived, I wonder why you would indeed read it.)

 

The Article refers to this report which is still restricted.

(http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/iransyriareport280809.html)

Note the wording in the provided excerpts:

Furthermore:

None of this is conclusive of a nuclear weapons program.

The article states that the report is:

Obviously if the IAEA had any real concern it would have been explicitly stated. I think we all know that Western and Israeli expectations are utterly hypocritical, not to mention intentional Media disinformation.

Here is an article to illustrate my point:

Excerpt:

(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48213)

 

Why is it so surprising that any nuclear program that is based on HEU would not also have a Military purpose?

There are multiple nuclear LEU reactors that will provide all and more power that Iran needs for it's electrical needs, but only HEU reactors can provide weapons grade material.

So where is the surprise? Russia offered to build and supply LEU systems, and material, the U.S. has done the same.

So I find it ludicrous, that anyone would even question, that Irans nuclear program didn't have a Military Component.

 

Yes, indeed: may be indicative. Note, too, the title of the thread. You have not, thus far, demonstrated any surety that Iran has no such intentions.

And so it was: Iran's nuclear program may have military dimensions. This doesn't concern you? If you might get cancer from smoking, would you just puff away, or would you be worried?

 

So as long as the other guy starts it, all "strategic installations" are fair game?

And as far as "defensive capacity:" Iran was on the offensive for the last 6 years of that war - after refusing a generous Saudi-backed peace package that would have allowed Saddam to remain in power. Instead they demanded the overthrow of Saddam's regime and launched a years-long war, complete with unsupported human wave attacks, child minesweepers, bombardment of urban centers, etc.

Which I thought was the sort of callous over-reaction that you were against.

This whole "save Iran from Israeli aggression" line is really bizarre. This isn't the Palestinians, or even the Arabs, we're talking about here. What threat does Israel pose to Iran?

 

Because Israel has not declared any intentions of using them offenssively.