Iran has enough uranium for five nuclear weapons, claims US thinktank [View all]

Source: The Guardian

Iran has significantly increased its output of low-enriched uranium and if it was further refined could make at at least five nuclear weapons, according to a US thinktank.

The Institute for Science and International Security, which tracks Iran's nuclear programme, made the analysis on the basis of data in the latest quarterly report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The UN watchdog's report, published on Friday, showed Iran pressing ahead with its uranium enrichment work in defiance of UN resolutions calling on it to suspend the activity.

It said Iran had produced almost 6.2 tonnes of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5% since it began the work in 2007 – some of which has subsequently been further processed into higher-grade material.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/26/iran-uranium-nuclear-weapons

84 replies, 7615 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

84 replies	Author	Time	Post
Iran has enough uranium for five nuclear weapons, claims US thinktank [View all]	alp227	May 2012	OP
I don't know "The Institute for Science and International Security."	Jackpine Radical	May 2012	#1
This message was self-deleted by its author	cstanleytech	May 2012	#2
I just did a quick check of the place	MrScorpio	May 2012	#3
Wouldnt surprise me if that turned out to be the case. nt	cstanleytech	May 2012	#4
No it's not, and the estimate is probably correct	bananas	May 2012	#11
Alright, I take back the crack about Heritage...	MrScorpio	May 2012	#15
He didn't say or imply they're making nuclear bombs.	bananas	May 2012	#27
If there was no implication that the Iranians are making bombs…	MrScorpio	May 2012	#31
Research	kitt6	May 2012	#19
I'm up to my ears in research.	Jackpine Radical	May 2012	#58
EXTREMELY likely. Just in 2006 Kerry said that Iran was at LEAST 5 years away from having the	blm	May 2012	#23
It's David Albright's organization, and he's probably right. nt	bananas	May 2012	#12
Really? Is that the Albright that said back in 2002	cstanleytech	May 2012	#18
He's better at physics than he is at chemistry and biology	bananas	May 2012	#32
No, this is fiction until something more concrete comes along to prove otherwise	cstanleytech	May 2012	#40
How good is he at NOT being a propaganda tool? That's the only question...	JackRiddler	May 2012	#68
Did they count how many nuclear bombs America has in its arsenal?	freshwest	May 2012	#38
Not very relevant imo to the topic on hand, sorry. nt	cstanleytech	May 2012	#41
It is to me. United States strategic nuclear weapons arsenal:	freshwest	May 2012	#43
You are right, it probably wouldnt happen while he is in office however	cstanleytech	May 2012	#44
More dramatic, but much less dangerous that our homegrown wackos who are much closer...	freshwest	May 2012	#45
Meh they (the tea party and the fanatics in Iran) are both equally dangerous but ya I get	cstanleytech	May 2012	#46
Entirely relevant. Who decides "relevance"? The Pentagon? Netanyahu?	JackRiddler	May 2012	#75
imo = in my opinion and last I checked we are still allowed to have those. Thanks for	cstanleytech	May 2012	#77
Yes we are, and no obligation to back them either. Lucky for you.	JackRiddler	May 2012	#80
Correction, its "Yes we are, and no obligation to back them either. Lucky for us all."	cstanleytech	May 2012	#81
Yes, we're all lucky to share in the freedom to present FMA opinions.	JackRiddler	May 2012	#82
from Scott Ritter	legin	May 2012	#66
"if it was further refined "	Martin Eden	May 2012	#5
"Balls!" said the Queen. "If I had two,	coalition_unwilling	May 2012	#13
It's 3.5% your uncle.	boppers	May 2012	#20
Maybe so, but ...	Martin Eden	May 2012	#26
Well, they'd still only have 5 shots.	boppers	May 2012	#28
3.5% is yellow cake which is feedstock and is not classified as refined uranium. Commercial grade is	Monk06	May 2012	#62
Correction: It only takes a small amount of yellowcake to produce some weapons grade uranium.	boppers	May 2012	#65
Same garbage they were saying about Iraq. The war drum beats louder.	sarcasmo	May 2012	#6
Think tank = men in suits with their heads up their asses	Warpy	May 2012	#7
Well, then send in "The Institute for Science and International Security" to get it.	KansDem	May 2012	#8
I have a great chocolate chip cookie recipie that I found	bluestateguy	May 2012	#9
When you find a great recipe	bupkus	May 2012	#33
Too much work! Just eat the chocolate chips outta the bag and get it over with!	freshwest	May 2012	#36
Think tank, the guys in suits	Iliyah	May 2012	#10
+1,000. You win the thread.	freshwest	May 2012	#37
The guys that don't have to bother with silly elections, yet somehow they matter more than everyone	harun	May 2012	#61
Says a US think tank...who would profit incredibly from an endless war economy?	Fire Walk With Me	May 2012	#14
And how many nuclear weapons does the USA have?	WHEN CRABS ROAR	May 2012	#16
"We" didnt lie, now Bush, Cheney and some of those in their administration probably did	cstanleytech	May 2012	#25
Never mind the USA...	Figaro78	May 2012	#56
The Pakistanis have many nuclear weapons	Rosa Luxemburg	May 2012	#60
why do you think Israelis are "kill crazy"	Mosby	May 2012	#72
So, not enough to level a single metropolitan city.	boppers	May 2012	#17
Where to start here?	longship	May 2012	#21
Here we go again, now.	think4yourself	May 2012	#22
Reuters had already posted it earlier today	dipsydoodle	May 2012	#30
I hope to goodness they make a nuclear weapon	tcaudilllg	May 2012	#24
+1	Purveyor	May 2012	#34
This is disturbing	oberliner	May 2012	#50
Very disturbing. nt	bananas	May 2012	#64
The only three countries	sulphurdunn	May 2012	#29
I thought N Korea was under an embargo or something? nt	cstanleytech	May 2012	#42
Yes, but no-one	sulphurdunn	May 2012	#52
Thats because its to risky due to China being a close ally which means	cstanleytech	May 2012	#53
Yes	sulphurdunn	May 2012	#55
India, Pakistan, and Israel did not sign the treaty	oberliner	May 2012	#49
Since 1970	sulphurdunn	May 2012	#51
This message was self-deleted by its author	eek MD	May 2012	#78
This is a non-story	naaman fletcher	May 2012	#35
Oh Oh, the war drums are beating again	magic59	May 2012	#39
How would Iran having a nuke be worse	bowens43	May 2012	#47
Isn't nuclear non-proliferation something you support?	oberliner	May 2012	#48
Yes. Which is why Israel poses the greatest nuclear threat on the planet.	JackRiddler	May 2012	#69
that's an absurd statement.	Mosby	May 2012	#73
Your choice of adjectives does not change the truth: Israel is a danger to world peace.	JackRiddler	May 2012	#74
You have it completely backwards	Mosby	May 2012	#76
Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon	GeorgeGist	May 2012	#54
Gas prices falling good for Obama... Time for Iran war talk. Problem Solved.	AvBerkel	May 2012	#57
They may very well be on to something.	AverageJoe90	May 2012	#59
David Albright - the media's go-to guy on Iraq's WMDs in 2002.	Prometheus Bound	May 2012	#63
And the drum beat for war begins again.	alarimer	May 2012	#67
So if they make five bombs out of that they'll still have 115 to 395 fewer than Israel.	JackRiddler	May 2012	#70
Maybe....Iran is ALWAYS "five years from the bomb"--see link inside	Maeve	May 2012	#71
Personally, I don't think ANYONE should have nuclear weapons.....	eek MD	May 2012	#79
Bullshit blood-for-money garbage.	woo me with science	May 2012	#83
More fear mongering from the usual suspects. n/t	Egalitarian Thug	May 2012	#84