Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:59 PM
Purveyor (26,728 posts)
Iran Ready To Double Nuclear Work In Bunker - IAEA
By Fredrik Dahl
VIENNA | Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:37pm GMT
(Reuters) - Iran is set to sharply expand its uranium enrichment in an underground plant after installing all the centrifuges it was built for, a U.N. report said, a move likely to increase Western alarm about Tehran's nuclear course.
It also showed that Iran's stockpile of its most sensitive nuclear material - which could relatively quickly be processed further to bomb-grade uranium - had grown and was getting closer to an amount that could be sufficient for a nuclear weapon.
The latest quarterly International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran came 10 days after the re-election of U.S. President Barack Obama, which raised hopes for a revival of nuclear diplomacy with Iran following speculation that Israel might attack the nuclear facilities of its arch-enemy soon.
But the U.N. watchdog's findings underlined the tough task facing world powers seeking to pressure Iran to curb atomic activity they fear is aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability, a charge Tehran denies.
Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/16/uk-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUKBRE8AF1FY20121116
15 replies, 2391 views
Iran Ready To Double Nuclear Work In Bunker - IAEA (Original post)
|Hubert Flottz||Nov 2012||#2|
Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #1)
Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:24 PM
Hubert Flottz (37,724 posts)
2. Leaders that lie all the time are worthless fucks.
That's why Mitt would have been a disaster like W.
Response to msongs (Reply #3)
Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:00 PM
glacierbay (2,477 posts)
4. And how many American lives did those 2 weapons dropped save?
My dad was a fighter pilot in the Pacific Theater of War and he was slated for the invasion of Japan, military commanders estimated that a ground invasion would have costs us over 1 million American casualties and who knows how many Japanese casualties.
So IMO, dropping those 2 weapons saved American lives and ended the war a lot sooner.
Response to glacierbay (Reply #4)
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:29 AM
happyslug (14,350 posts)
11. Almost none.
First you have to understand that it is only post WWII propaganda that has made the two Atomic bombings the worse bombings of WWII. Hamburg in 1943, Dresden in early 1945 AND the March 1945 Fire bombing of Tokyo, each caused more death and did more damage then either A-bombings. Japan had NOT surrendered after the March fire bombing, and no one expected it after the A-bombings. You must understand that by June 1945, the only targets left that were large enough to be hit by mass dropping of conventional bombs, were the four cities reserved to be A-bombed. The US Air Force Commander of the Air War against Japan had made repeated requests for permission to target those cities, but it had been denied.
Thus the Air War by July 1945, had destroyed everything that could be hit from the Air, yet Japan had refused to surrender. Japan seemed to have been hoping for a miracle, that the US and the USSR would fight each other, and in that fight the Russians would give Japan the three things it needed to fight, modern planes, pilots for those planes and oil. Russian had all three by May 1945, Japan had none. Thus by May 1945, Japan's only hope for "Victory" was a breakup of the WWII Alliance between the US and the USSR.
You have to remember the end of WWII. Germany Surrendered on May 8th, 1945. At Yalta, FDR had forced Stalin promise that within 90 days of the surrender of Germany, Russia would attack Manchuria. The 90th day was August 6th, 1945. Thus Stalin had to attack within days of August 6, 1945. We drop the first A-Bomb on August 6, the Second on August 9. The Russians attacked August 7.
One of the reasons (if not the top reason) was to drop the bomb BEFORE the Russians attack. We knew that 90 days was cutting it close for the Russians. They had striped their siberia forces to fight Germany. Thus they had to move an entire army, on the Siberian Railroad. It shocked us that they did it.
Worse the immediate Japanese reaction to the A-bombing and the Russia invasion, was to ignore the A-bombing, issue instructions on how to minimize the effect of ore A-bombing (and instructions to their army that if the US decided to use Chemicals NOT to respond with Chemicals, for it would be a losing position military).
By August 15th, it was clear that the Russian would have all of Manchuria by September 1. By October 1, all of Korea. Given that the only Japanese Political leader NOT tied in with the war time Government was in Moscow AND for at least two years the Japanese Government had become afraid of a Communist revolt IN JAPAN ITSELF. The Speed of the Russia attack was viewed with greater fear then the A-bombings.
While the Japanese had anticipated every beach the US would have landed on, even with the US using Chemicals and A-bombs, the Japanese thought they could fight off one America Invasion. Subsequent review of those plans matched up well with where the US was planning to land (Japan does NOT have many good beeches to land on, thus the Japanese had a good idea where would have landed).
On the other hand, the Japanese people were turning against the Government and even the Emperor. This could be seen in the refusal of Japanese civilian sailors to serve on Civilian ships due to the growing fear of US minings of the harbors.
All together, it was clear that if ANY Russian Forces reached Japan, the Japanese Communist Party was willing, ready, and able to lead a Communist revolt against the war time Japanese Government. This was the big fear of the Japanese Government and why it Surrendered on August 15.
The US seems to accept this same premise, thus the first US troops sent to "Occupy" Japan was to Inchon, Korea so we could occupy Seoul Korea, leaving the Russians take North Korea (The US knew it could NOT stop the Russians, thus drew a line in Korea that the Russians accepted in September 1945).
In simple terms, the war was over as soon as the Russians attacked. The only Japanese hope for "victory" was to get assistance from Russia. This would permit Japan to defend herself from US Air and Naval attack (by providing the Planes, Pilots and Oil needed to fight in the Air and on the Sea), AND force the Japanese Communist Party to support the war time Japanese government. The Russian attack on Manchuria, killed that whole idea, and forced the Japanese wartime government to accept that it had to surrender to the US to prevent Japan from going Communist. That fear, driven home by the speed of the Russian advance in Manchuria NOT the A-bombings is what forced the Japanese Government to surrender. Thus the A-bombing saved few if any American lives. Those lives were spared by the Russians invasion of Manchuria.
Response to slackmaster (Reply #5)
Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:12 PM
davidthegnome (2,625 posts)
I suspect that what the poster is suggesting is that it's somewhat hypocritical for the only Nation to have ever used nuclear weapons to be demanding that another does not gain them.
An Iran with nuclear weapons would be more dangerous, more competitive and in a better position to negotiate and defend it's resources. I often wonder how much of our politicians actual concern is for the potential of nuclear war... and how much of it is for the idea of not being able to push around a small, oil producing Country that we could quite simply wipe off the map at this time.
Perhaps I'm too pessimistic in regards to government. Then again, perhaps not. They say money makes the world go round - and enormous amounts of it certainly dominated this last election cycle... when we cannot to fund our schools, rebuild our roads and bridges, provide any modern major modern improvements to public transportation...
Hell, maybe we can bribe the Iranians into stopping. It seems to be what we're good at.
Response to mrf901 (Reply #12)
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:44 PM
happyslug (14,350 posts)
15. That is NOT Iranian dogma
Yes, the Iranians are "Twelvers", Shiite's who believe that the 12th decedent of Ali will come back at the end of time to lead the Shiites to final victory over the Sunnis (and prepare the way for Christ to return, yes, the Moslems accept the concept that Christ NOT Mohammad, will return at the end of times).
The problem is, the return of the Last Iman is to LEAD the subsequet victory of the Shiites, and no one is claiming to be that person at the present time. If anything, the Supreme Leader's REJECTION of Atomic Weapons would indicate the closest thing to the return of the 12th iman opposes the use of Atomic Weapons.
Sorry, your statement flys in the face of Iranian generally accepted Dogma, some people in the West may think that is Iranian Dogam, but I have NOT seen any indications of that being AN IRANIAN DOGMA at the present time.
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:33 PM
Ash_F (4,617 posts)
7. Oh look rotters, they lied about the last IAEA report too.
Which can be found here
The latest one is not up yet. But I will bump this thread with it once it is. I strongly recommend reading the actual report, which clearly states that there is no evidence of weaponization in its summation. And makes no findings of violation of the NPT, which is in only their authority.
Look at this gem from the Reuters article.
"troubling evidence that Iran is ... slowly enhancing its nuclear weapons breakout potential,"
"..."? <--- That is adorable.
Response to Ash_F (Reply #7)
Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:26 PM
Mosby (5,902 posts)
9. did you read your link?
there is an entire section on militarization.
H. Possible Military Dimensions
38. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible
military dimensions to Iranís nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these.39 Since
2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of
undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities
related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.
Response to Mosby (Reply #9)
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:12 AM
Ash_F (4,617 posts)
10. Did you?
Does that paragraph you quoted mean there is evidence of militarization or that there have been any violations of the treaty? No. All evidence points to non-weaponization as per the following section.
9. Under its Safeguards Agreement, Iran has declared to the Agency 16 nuclear facilities and nine
locations outside facilities where nuclear material is customarily used (LOFs). Notwithstanding that
certain of the activities being undertaken by Iran at some of the facilities are contrary to the relevant
resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, as indicated below, the Agency
continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs.
This is the same crap Bush and the Right Wing Media pulled with Iraq. Twisting and distorting the IAEA's work for their own propaganda. And IAEA officials were pissed about it back then too.