If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Iran to enrich Uranium to 60% levels if nuclear talks fail. Uranium is solely for "peaceful" purposes such as "nuclear submarines", which is sure to get a "peaceful" response from Israel in the form of a nice bouquet of missiles   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 37
    More: Unlikely, Iran, uranium enrichment, states with nuclear weapons, research reactor, Bushehr, Iran nuclear, Press TV, missiles  
•       •       •

2002 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 11:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-03 11:32:14 AM  
5 votes:

Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll


The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.
2012-10-03 11:47:08 AM  
4 votes:

logistic: prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/Noun: 1.Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2.The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.


At this point, it is my opinion that anyone who believes a single thing our intelligence or military says about this issue is a complete idiot. After the "yellow cake" issue where our intelligence agencies literally said "we can be pressured to lie", I am still shocked that people are so stupid as to believe this.

Why don't we ask Israel to prove they're not going to nuke us? Proving a negative is a stupid basis for war and we owe our troops and our taxpayers better treatment than this.


Trying to decide if you're a complete moron (complete morons are rare) or just a typical Fark poster that doesn't bother to read the article before blathering in the comments. This isn't our military or our intelligence saying anything. It's an Iranian official saying it. Publicly. On the record. Out loud. It's not like the CIA is claiming they hid a microphone in his cornflakes and caught him saying this at a secret meeting between Iran, Al Queda, and the Taliban. And we're not asking Iran to prove they're not going to nuke us. We're asking them to stop developing things (like enriched uranium) that you would only need for nuclear weapons and would not need for civilian applications like a nuclear reactor.

For those of you who may be as clueless as logistic here, the most common civilian power generating reactors use uranium which is enriched 3 to 5 percent. The only three things 60% enriched uranium might be used for are weapons, creation of medical isotopes, and naval reactors. The west has already agreed to give Iran all the medical isotopes they want. That leaves two options, nuclear weapons and naval reactors. Hence Iran's sudden desire to have a nuclear powered submarine. Anyone who thinks Iran actually wants a nuclear submarine is an idiot. What they want is an excuse for having 60% enriched uranium other than "IT'S FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" Useful idiots like many of the people in this thread actually believe them. Others don't believe Iran and know that what Iran actually wants in nuclear weapons, and just don't have a problem with this. That also doesn't make much sense to me, but at least it's a reasonable difference of opinion, as opposed to people who still believe the Iran's nuclear weapons program is something other than a nuclear weapons program.
2012-10-03 11:25:39 AM  
4 votes:
I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.
2012-10-03 12:50:13 PM  
3 votes:

xanadian: I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?


It depends.

For nuclear bombs, you need over 20% and sophisticated weapons usually use over-85% enriched material. For dirty bombs, you can get away with a lot less because the aim is not to blow things up, but irradiate people and things. For power generation, you don't need much unless you are doing it the old-fashioned way, with enriched uranium, graphite-moderated reactors.

Different types of nuclear reactors run on different fuels, but 2%-3% enrichment is just fine for enriched uranium reactors. If your aim is simply to heat water, you can, in theory, dump a lot of unenriched uranium or other radioactive material into a hole in the ground and draw off hot water for heating and steam turbine electrictiy generation. Nobody does this on a commercial scale, but a Thorium reactor is a possibility and in the pre-production stages, and it need not be much more complex than a sealed cannister that is leak-proof and able to withstand heat and pressure changes.

At least 2% enrichment is necessary for enriched uranium reactors. The concern with 65%, which is well below bomb-making levels, is that once you have reached that level of enrichment, it's a short jog to 95%. Enrichment takes place in centrifuges, that work on the same principle more or less as the cream separator on dairy farms. The process is repeated until the desired level of concentration of Uranium-235 is reached from feedstock of Uranium-238, which is more stable and not very useful for bombs and power generation.

Iran does not have the bomb, there's not a lot of real evidence it is actively seeking the bomb, and it says it does not want the bomb. In fact, top Imans have declared a fatwa (ruling, judgement) that nuclear weapons are immoral. It is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty club (the USA has not ratified formally), which proclaims the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. If it weren't for politics, Iran getting the bomb would be no more of an issue than Canada getting it.

In fact, many American Realist political observers are non-Zionists and are not worried if Iran gets the bomb. They think it would stabilize the politics of the region. After all, Israel, Pakistan and India are all known to have the technology and the weapons. Pakistan and India have tested explosions. Making bombs is not the hard part. It's testing them often enough to make sure they'll work when used that takes the real resources. If Iran has the bomb, it would be a lot less nervous, and a lot of other countries would be more nervous, making them easier to deal with. The Saudis are said to have their oil fields booby-trapped against the risk of invasion plans (for US invasion plans, see the 1973 plans drawn up by the Nixon administration), but nuclear weapons would make them worry enough to allow the US to pressure them a bit more on terrorism, Israel and other issues, notably oil, human rights and such.

With its centrifuges crippled by the Stuxnet virus, which everybody is pretty sure was an Israeli-American co-production to some degree or other, Iran's ability to produce enough weapons-grade material is delayed, but not prevented. And everything Israel and the USA does pushes Iran towards getting the bomb. Only credible assurances of safety from pre-emptive strikes against its reactors (mostly research reactors, including the one that the USA gave the Shah, along with 75 pounds of uranium to play with) would fail to drive Iran towards a pre-bomb threshold with enough enriched uranium to build a bomb in less than a year.

Almost any advanced and wealthy nation could, in a pinch, have the bomb in a year, including Canada, which has the uranium, the technology, basic delivery systems, etc, and only lacks the will to go nuclear.

As for terrorist level weapons (simple, crude dirty bombs to disperse radioactive materials in order to kill or frighten a population the size of a city), you don't need national resources for that. The resources of a small university, a mid-sized corporation or a well-funded terrorist group would be sufficient.

As the Professor points out in The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad, a man who is unafraid to die is pretty much untouchable by those who are, including the police. In the story, the Professor, who is a sort of Ted Kazinsky type on steroids, mets the top cop in London in a narrow alley. Both of them know that that the Professor has a very small but beatifully made bomb in his pocket and can blow them both to Kingdom Come in a trice. What to do? What to do? The idea of Mutual Assured Destruction is not new. The Mexican Standoff has been around longer than Mexico, which is ancient.

Robert Frost said that good walls make good neighbours, but a good nuclear deterrant is also effective except in cases of real irrationality, and most of the world's apparent irrationality is just politics and economics continued by other means.
2012-10-03 11:31:18 AM  
3 votes:

threadjackistan: fireclown: It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.

It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.


Well, sucks to be Israel then.
2012-10-03 11:25:52 AM  
3 votes:
prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/Noun: 1.Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2.The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.


At this point, it is my opinion that anyone who believes a single thing our intelligence or military says about this issue is a complete idiot. After the "yellow cake" issue where our intelligence agencies literally said "we can be pressured to lie", I am still shocked that people are so stupid as to believe this.

Why don't we ask Israel to prove they're not going to nuke us? Proving a negative is a stupid basis for war and we owe our troops and our taxpayers better treatment than this.
2012-10-03 12:13:10 PM  
2 votes:

Rent Party: 60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.


Weapons that use a plutonium core as a primary stage use U-235 that has been enriched from 40% to 80% as the secondary stage. You wouldn't make a primary stage out of 60% U-235, but to say that it isn't 'weapons grade' is inaccurate. The US nuclear weapons arsenal uses U-235 that has been enriched 40% to 80%.

As stated above, there are only a limited number of uses for 60% enriched U-235, and civilian power generation is not one of them.

Source

Uranium with enrichments ranging from 40% to 80% U-235 has been used in large amounts in U.S. thermonuclear weapons as a yield-boosting jacketing material for the secondary fusion stage.
2012-10-03 11:37:25 AM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Why do we hate them again?


They're not just letting the oil companies have all the oil for free. The heathens think it's THEIRS for some damn reason and they have the right to be compensated for it.

Doesn't they know that all oil bearing lands belong to good Christian western companies? Why else would God have put the oil under the ground?
2012-10-03 05:21:15 PM  
1 votes:

threadjackistan: fireclown: It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.

It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.


Israel should probably stop making idle threats against Iran, then.
2012-10-03 03:05:57 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
Just exactly what do you think we're supposed to do with all that stuff?

Rome let their gaurd down and disbanded much of their military as well. That worked out well for them.

And in fact (because I suck at the internet) had Rome kept their legions, you know, *in Rome*, rather than spread out all over the goddamn globe, they might have been better prepared to repel the Visgoths.


Plus, running out of lands to conquer and send back the spoils put the burden of paying for a massive army on the backs of Roman taxpayers. And as the citizens went broke paying the military for their adventures, the whole of the empire began to collapse under the crushing debt.....

Saaaaay, this story suddenly sounds eerily familiar. Must be a coincidence.
2012-10-03 02:42:39 PM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability: Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
Not really, Iraq attacked Kuwait and posed a threat to region stability. I bet there are a few Kuwaitis that would be thankful. An unprovoked attack nuclear attack could start a world war.

The 1st Gulf War had a clear mission statement (eject Iraq from Kuwait and restore the Kuwaiti government) and exit strategy (When we are done doing that, we GTFO and go home.) The casualties in that war were minimal to Iraqi civilians because the hostilities took place well away from Iraqi urban centers and focused exclusively on Iraqi military targets.

Having said that, Iraq had grievances against Kuwait, primarily Kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and Kuwaiti overproduction. What they really wanted was access to sea ports, but they did have a legitimate beef. They also were deep in debt to Kuwait because they financed much of Iraq's efforts in their war with Iran, from which Kuwait directly benefited.

But that's not the war I'm talking about. I'm talking about GWB's excursion into Iraq, which had none of that. No mission criteria, no exit strategy, and no real casus belli. The result was shifting strategies (Shock and awe!), intense combat operation in densely populated urban areas, and a whole lot of dead people that didn't need to be dead.

So what you're saying is they repeatedly violated the treaty they had set up with the United Nations by throwing weapons inspectors out and repeatedly not disclosing all their military weaponry Link. They were in violation of the treaty and were allowed to get away with it until 'oh noez terr0rz' and then we stepped in to see for ourselves. Of course we found nothing (see- America is bad), but then why regularly toss out weapon inspectors if you have nothing to hide? We had a legitimate beef, but couldn't act on it because five UN countries (most of whom were also getting much of their oil supply from Iraq and allies), decided that this breach did not constitute the need for milita ...


Weapons inspectors weren't thrown out, they left. And then, prior to hostilities, they were allowed back in.

But none of that is here nor there. If the causus belli de jour today is "They violated a UN Treaty!" then it is up to the UN to enforce, not the US. And you do know we acted unilaterally, right? Without UN sanction?

Right?
2012-10-03 01:54:32 PM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability:
Not really, Iraq attacked Kuwait and posed a threat to region stability. I bet there are a few Kuwaitis that would be thankful. An unprovoked attack nuclear attack could start a world war.


The 1st Gulf War had a clear mission statement (eject Iraq from Kuwait and restore the Kuwaiti government) and exit strategy (When we are done doing that, we GTFO and go home.) The casualties in that war were minimal to Iraqi civilians because the hostilities took place well away from Iraqi urban centers and focused exclusively on Iraqi military targets.

Having said that, Iraq had grievances against Kuwait, primarily Kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and Kuwaiti overproduction. What they really wanted was access to sea ports, but they did have a legitimate beef. They also were deep in debt to Kuwait because they financed much of Iraq's efforts in their war with Iran, from which Kuwait directly benefited.

But that's not the war I'm talking about. I'm talking about GWB's excursion into Iraq, which had none of that. No mission criteria, no exit strategy, and no real casus belli. The result was shifting strategies (Shock and awe!), intense combat operation in densely populated urban areas, and a whole lot of dead people that didn't need to be dead.
2012-10-03 01:24:30 PM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability:
Just exactly what do you think we're supposed to do with all that stuff?

Rome let their gaurd down and disbanded much of their military as well. That worked out well for them.


And in fact (because I suck at the internet) had Rome kept their legions, you know, *in Rome*, rather than spread out all over the goddamn globe, they might have been better prepared to repel the Visgoths.
2012-10-03 01:15:46 PM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability: Well said Brantgoose. I won't quote you because I don't feel like scrolling down even further, but well said.

I've been trying to make the point that we are the less irrational of the two countries being discussed here on this thread. Most of the examples (if not all) Rent Party has posted were either in defense of another country (north korea/south korea), or some subversive reason (99% of the time to 'appropriate' that countries resources), but usually a mixture of the two. That may be cold, calculated and selfish, but it's better than a country whose clergy (i.e., people who actually run the country), talk about genocide. Its just too much Germany circa 1945 for me.


Most of the examples I listed happened because of the religious fear of Communism, even if democratically elected by the people of that nation. The most egregious example of that religious fear was Nicaragua, where the Sandinista government was elected in 1984, was openly socialist, and dumped most of the nations resources into Nicaragua through schools, hospitals, gender equality, and other commie things. Reagan's support of the Contra rebels (who rape and murder nuns for fun and profit) had everything to do with that religious dogma.

Today, rather than trembling at the very mention of evil communism, we wet our pants at the knowledge that there is a terrorist under every bed, and keep that aggression going.

We spend more on our military than the next 25 nations combined. And 24 of them our our allies.

Just exactly what do you think we're supposed to do with all that stuff?
2012-10-03 01:07:25 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: I'll just make this information available again, since there seems to be a prolonged campaign to pretend this never happened:


I think you are misreading what was said, both in the article this thread is linked to and in the Panetta article. Everyone knows that Iran is not currently enriching uranium to a level capable of being used in a nuclear weapon. So far, everything Iran has produced has been below the 20% threshold (enrichment beyond 20% is commonly referred to as 'Highly Enriched Uranium' or HEU).

However, they are developing the centrifuge technology that will allow them to enrich uranium well in excess of 20%, and that uranium will be weapons grade. That is why the 'threat' in the linked article to enrich to 60% is so serious. 60%, while not capable on it's own of creating a weapon, is certainly 'weapons grade' in that it is used in nuclear weapons. Also, the biggest barrier to enrichment technology is getting over 20%. There is another technological hurdle to overcome at roughly 60% (and another at roughly 80%) but those challenges are minor compared to the challenges of getting from 20% to 60%. If Iran starts producing 60% enriched uranium, it's a clear signal that they will be capable of producing much more highly enriched uranium shortly thereafter.

That is the 'nuclear capability' that we (and lets be honest here, no one else in the world) wants them to have. Europe doesn't want, the rest of the middle east doesn't want it, even the Russians and the Chinese aren't wild about it.
2012-10-03 12:38:43 PM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability: Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?

So, who is the aggressor now? Over 80 countries have had American military action on their soil since the war. If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?

What aggression? Did we instigate some kind of unprovoked attack against a military base of theirs?


We supported the violent overthrow of multiple governments, many of them democratically elected. We did this either through covert action (Iran, 1953) or overt action (Nicaragua, 1980s).

And the example we set in Iraq (Whoops! Wrong country, sorryboutthat!) should make any state populated with brown people nervous. It seems the only thing we pay attention to lately when we decide to take military action against someone is whether they are a nuclear power, and how much oil they're sitting on (see, Korea, North).

The best thing America can do to stop nuclear proliferation is to stop acting like the worlds biggest asshole so smaller states don't think they need them to deter us.
2012-10-03 12:30:36 PM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?


So, who is the aggressor now? Over 80 countries have had American military action on their soil since the war. If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?
2012-10-03 12:28:58 PM  
1 votes:

AntonChigger:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

How many times have we toppled other democracies?


We tipped over Iran in 1953, which led directly to the situation we have right now.

But since you asked.

Guatemala in 1954 (The 50s were a busy time for us)

The Congo in the early 60s.

Brazil in 1964

Ghana in 1966

Chile in the early 70s

And that's just what the Church Committee covered.
2012-10-03 12:20:16 PM  
1 votes:

xanadian: I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?


Already answered up thread, but it's 3% to 5%. Naval reactors (the kind used to power the U.S. and Russian submarine fleet) use much more highly enriched uranium (as highly enriched as is needed for weapons) because in those reactors space and weight is a major issue. Hence Iran's sudden (bullshiat) claim that all they want is a couple of nuclear submarines. It's the only other reason to have uranium enriched to that level.
2012-10-03 12:09:55 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: AntonChigger: Rent Party: wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.

And the list of countries that have used nuclear weapons in hostility has exactly 1 nation on it.

60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.

That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.


How many times have we toppled other democracies?
2012-10-03 12:06:18 PM  
1 votes:

AntonChigger: Rent Party: wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.

And the list of countries that have used nuclear weapons in hostility has exactly 1 nation on it.

60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.


That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.
2012-10-03 12:00:38 PM  
1 votes:
As the world's foremost nuclear superpower, and the only country to ever actually use nukes in a war, how exactly do we get the moral authority to tell other people not to have nukes?
2012-10-03 12:00:29 PM  
1 votes:

LL316: wedun: In fact, if you think about it, the US has been nothing but shiatty and belligerant to Iran for as long as it's been a modern state.

When did it become modern?


1925. The US threw that all away in 1953.

/ History. It's a thing!
2012-10-03 11:43:22 AM  
1 votes:

Rich Cream: [imageshack.us image 677x267]


That's the internet.
It's a serious tubes.
2012-10-03 11:41:42 AM  
1 votes:
In fact, if you think about it, the US has been nothing but shiatty and belligerant to Iran for as long as it's been a modern state.
2012-10-03 11:36:30 AM  
1 votes:
fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.
2012-10-03 11:35:41 AM  
1 votes:

gravebayne2: idunno. i know that Iran hates Israel and such. Israel is mostly Jewish folk......

[memedepot.com image 533x800]



How about Iranian Jews who even refuse payment to expatriate to Israel? Are they just self-loathing? 

Iran also has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel.
2012-10-03 11:33:30 AM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll


He does have a point though, how many wars has the US been involved in over the last 20 years? Iran?
2012-10-03 11:29:43 AM  
1 votes:

amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.


That is one awful troll
2012-10-03 11:25:15 AM  
1 votes:

sno man: Marcus Aurelius: Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Why do we hate them again?

Their fundies are in charge... There might be a lesson there.


See what one nation under God can get you?
2012-10-03 11:23:40 AM  
1 votes:
An "Iranian sub crew" is a 100% certain one way mission of suicide. With no possible bang for their buck. Those are dead men walking.
2012-10-03 11:23:27 AM  
1 votes:
It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.
2012-10-03 10:49:03 AM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Why do we hate them again?


Because they hate our boss and when the boss says "hate 'em back" we jump.
2012-10-03 10:16:40 AM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Why do we hate them again?


Their fundies are in charge... There might be a lesson there.
2012-10-03 09:48:10 AM  
1 votes:
Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Why do we hate them again?
2012-10-03 09:39:00 AM  
1 votes:
As long as they pay for it themselves.
2012-10-03 08:15:59 AM  
1 votes:
Iran has the same 2nd Amendment rights as everyone else.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report