In what may just be the most boneheaded quote I have ever seen in print, the Washington Post says:
Also, traces of highly enriched uranium, which can be used for the core of a weapon, were discovered through environmental samples taken at another facil…

Riehl World View

You might want to check out CJ’s brief post on Iran and nuclear development. He has some knowledge in the field.

Meanwhile Debka claims there’s an armada off the coast of Lebanon. We’ll see. I’m not familiar enough with what we’…

You might want to check out CJ’s brief post on Iran and nuclear development. He has some knowledge in the field. Meanwhile Debka claims there’s an armada off the coast of Lebanon. We’ll see. I’m not familiar enough with what…

…the UN’s afraid it might have to act…

Well, the poobahs in the “United” Nations Assembly and the “Security” Council may harbor illusions that they’re men of action, but even when they pass a “resolution,” it doesn’t amount to an action. If the UN “acts” in this way or if it doesn’t, what’s the difference? It’s just theater, just acting! Oh, I see; you meant they have stage fright. Well, then I withdraw my point.

The most Ironic thing that could happen if all of this comes to a head and we reap the nuclear winter is that some libtard’ll be on tv talking about how “we’re fear mongering” because we’re worried about terrorists having nukes, and then one goes off … poof … right in the middle of their bloviation their argument is proven wrong.

This is seriously scarry stuff. I read that little summation of what a nuke would do in Nyc (which is what I said would be next if they get the means when 9/11 hit), and it is the utter destruction of our social structure.

This is really scarry stuff. Anyone who’s in a position to do something is just … ignoring it hoping it will go away. This is bad … reeeeeeeeeeal bad.

UNITED NATIONS – The U.N. Security Council will need until mid-September before acting on its threat to punish Iran if Tehran’s leaders flout a Thursday deadline to suspend uranium enric……

That conversion didn’t happen until 1987 – late in the Iran-Iraq war. Some of the used HEU fuel from the 60’s is still sitting in Tehran today (see here):

Another overlooked concern about the Tehran reactor is the weapons-grade fuel the U.S. provided Iran in the 1960s—about 10 pounds of highly enriched uranium, the most valuable material to bomb makers. It is still at the reactor and susceptible to theft, U.S. scientists familiar with the situation said.

This uranium has already been burned in the reactor, but the “spent fuel” is still highly enriched and could be used in a bomb. Normally, spent fuel is so radioactive that terrorists cannot handle it without causing themselves great harm. But the spent fuel in Iran has sat in storage for so long that it is probably no longer highly radioactive and could be handled easily, the U.S. scientists say.

This used fuel is still considered HEU but is obviously no longer at 93%. IAEA testing should be able to easily confirm if this is the source of the contamination or not.

The fuel in the WAPO article would probably be from the 5MW research reactor we built for the Iranians in the mid 1960’s. It uses 93% HEU.

This link says the research reactor was converted from 93% enriched to 20% enriched by Argentina in the 1980s. It is hard for me to find reliable sources of information on the tehran research reactor because so many of the sources discussing it are liberals trying to make the argument that this is all really our fault, the same argument they made about the Taliban and Bin Laden. Im not going to put much faith in liberal secondary sources. This NTI link seems legit though:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/3119_3220.html

Let me know what you think, and if you find any more recent / updated / detailed info.

Admit it: neocons just like to watch shit blow up on the teevee, and Bush just wants to avenge the assassination attempt on his father make big money for Halliburton show that Jesus is bigger and badder than Allah. No worries, though. The Great Bunny K…

Everybody, now: DUH! Or if you’re a Homer Simpson fan: DOH!

For more thoughtful analysis read Allah at Hot Air and Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters.
…

The fuel in the WAPO article would probably be from the 5MW research reactor we built for the Iranians in the mid 1960’s. It uses 93% HEU. We refused to refuel the reactor after 1979, but I think the Iranians also had fueling contracts with France and Germany. It appears the original fuel we provided is still stored at the reactor. The reactor has been under IAEA safeguards since 1974 with no known violations. I’m not sure when the reactor was last refueled or how many times it has been. Typically, the used fuel is transferred under IAEA safeguard back to the entity they bought it from. Since I haven’t seen anything to the contrary, I’m assuming that’s the case with any refuellings of this reactor.

The fuel was probably moved during the Iran-Iraq war because of repeated scud attacks and airstrikes on industrial facilities.

It should be relatively straightfoward to determine if this recent contamination is from the spent fuel or not.

The problem is testing. They have to test to make sure their theories are correct.

North Korea has never tested a nuclear weapon and yet everyone takes them very seriously, and no one is really disputing that North Korea has them. Iran isn’t re-inventing the wheel. There are many proven designs already out there, especially when you consider proliferation legacy of the Khan network. Also, consider the Soviet and Chinese programs. I would not put much faith in warhead design being the weak link in the process.

What we are talking about is a fusion device that not only works, but will fit on a missile.

No, fusion is not necessary. Pakistan uses fission warheads on missiles.

It took the US decades to get our warheads to a size and weight that was reasonable for a missile.

The USSR had successfully tested a nuclear ICBM by 1957, a mere 8 years after their 1st nuclear test. The USA tested the nuclear-capable Redstone missile in 1953 then used it in a nuclear test in 1958. The US had the Atlas ICBM in 1959. You think it took the US decades to get a nuclear weapon onto a missile?

One nuke test makes them a nuclear power?

Yes, it does.

BTW, Iran isn’t in the middle east.

Yes, it is.

do you know why MacArthur didn’t use nukes in Korea?

We didn’t have them, five years after VJ Day.

I don’t know where you are getting your information, but you are very wrong. The US mass produced 120 “fat man” bombs between 1947 and 1949, 550 improved mk-4 “fat man” bombs starting in 1949. The real reason MacArthur did not use nukes against North Korea and mainland China, which MacArthur wanted to do as well, was that he lacked the authority to do it and Truman overruled him.

Nukes are not some magical weapon that ends the world.

Nukes are VERY magical. Ask North Korea. If Iran gets even 1 nuke, they will have “won” and all military options will be off the table. The world has learned a terrible lesson thanks to North Korea: you get nukes, and you get handled with kid gloves.

They are then a nuclear power and the entire center of gravity in the Middle East sits squarely over Tehran.

There is that nuclear power that has a footprint in Iraq…

Riehl World View

One might think that with an American media so attuned to listening to what our friends, allies and even enemies in the International community have to say, we’d see more than a handful of Google News references to a recent exchange …

Implosion designs are tricky without testing though.

To say the least.

It may well be that Pakistan’s Khan sold nuke information to Iran, but the Paki nukes haven’t proven very reliable in their tests.

The AQ Khan network did sell Libya a design for a first-generation implosion device that is believed to be the uranium implosion bomb the Chinese tested in 1964. It’s possible Iran received the same design from the Khan network.

Implosion designs are tricky without testing though.

What I AM saying is that we need to stop them from getting the bomb in the first place.

That is the best option. But even if they test a nuke, it does not mean they have a stockpile.

A better analogy to what I’m talking about… does it really matter if a Bad guy has a musket… or a futuristic machine gun??? at least to the person HE JUST SHOT?

To the person shot, it’s not good. But bottom line is, they won’t get a chance after that to shoot another.

Nukes are not magic, they don’t end the world. If, and I do mean if, Iran tests a nuke, no one in the UN or the IAEA can claim otherwise. It’s a no win for Iran to test. If they don’t test, they don’t know if they have a workable design. If they do test, everyone knows.

It may well be that Pakistan’s Khan sold nuke information to Iran, but the Paki nukes haven’t proven very reliable in their tests.

Iran is using NorK missile tech, which blew up midflight in recent tests.

Qom was recently destroyed in an earthquake. The buildings literally fell apart.

Their big “victory” was getting Israel to stop killing Hezballah terrorists.

Now you expect me to believe that they are going to secretly deploy nukes all over the US?

Today’s mini-posts, newest items at the top:…

What I AM saying is that we need to stop them from getting the bomb in the first place.

A better analogy to what I’m talking about… does it really matter if a Bad guy has a musket… or a futuristic machine gun??? at least to the person HE JUST SHOT?

Iran does NOT need a modern nuke to gain both the prestige, and political power, that a nuke would bring…. remember, we are not just dealing with reality here, but with political perception…