WORLD: CIA reports Iran has enough uranium for 2 bombs

[demoleft]

Source: agi

(AGI) - Washington - According to the CIA "Iran has enough uranium for two atomic bombs" and it will take two years to build them. The information was provided by Director Leon Panetta in an interview. The uranium mentioned by Panetta is the uranium enriched at a low level while for atomic bombs 90% enrichment is required. Teheran recently announced it has enough uranium enriched at 20% for its nuclear civilian projects with about 17 kilos of uranium.


Read more: http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201006271556-pol-ren1071-world_cia_reports_iran_has_enough_uranium_for_2_bombs

---

and if so - next move?

[Newsjock]

1. That settles it, then!

We clearly must invade Pakistan!

:sarcasm:

[demoleft]

3. ;) indeed, i see a series of news/statements that point in a certain direction lately...

...you know, when you see scattered clouds that slowly gather to build a compact front.
and i do not like it in the least.

[papadog]

6. LOL, Pakistan has Nukes so we need another target but I like your persepective.

And since the CIA would never mislead the press I guess we should start a call to arms.

[Hubert Flottz]

14. And another tax cut for BP would probably help too.

[stray cat]

2. good thing nuclear weapons are not dangerous

:sarcasm:

[bemildred]

4. "The uranium mentioned by Panetta is the uranium enriched at a low level"

"Teheran recently announced it has enough uranium enriched at 20% for its nuclear civilian projects with about 17 kilos of uranium."

[demoleft]

8. it is the "2 year" deadline that i found disquieting. sounds like...

...it has ambition to enter the political agenda.

[bemildred]

25. Well, I do wonder how Mr Panetta arrived at that number.

I suspect it's not based on much of anything, just a nice round number, not too close and not too far away.

[Braulio]

31. It's called an anal procedure

When CIA types produce this type of figure, they call it an anal procedure. They take a CIA analyst, make him bend over, and take the figure, literally, out of his behind. Then they push it upstairs, where management, not known for its brains, cleans it, wraps it in a leather bound folder, and sends it to the White House and Congress. Eventually, the folder lands on a suitable newsperson's lap, to be used to inform us about these horrific secrets the CIA has uncovered. This is the way the CIA found out about all those WMDs the Iraqis had.

[bananas]

36. 20% is highly-enriched uranium, and Iran is in violation of the NPT.

Fuel-grade uranium is only 3-5%, this is 20%, and it doesn't take much to get it to weapons-grade.
If it's only 19.75%, it is low-enriched.
But Iran is in violation of the NPT anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Low-enriched uranium (LEU)

Low-enriched uranium' (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% 235U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU)

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U.

The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, reaching infinity at 6%235U.<2> For criticality experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.<3>

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2620/iran-to-enrich-20-percent-leu

<snip>

70 percent of the work toward reaching weapons-grade uranium took place when Iran enriched uranium gas to 3.5 percent. Enriching it further to the 19.75 percent needed for the reactor is an additional “15 to 20 percent of the way there.”

Once the uranium is enriched above 20 percent, it is considered highly enriched uranium. The uranium would need to be enriched further, to 60 percent and then to 90 percent, before it could be used for a weapon. “The last two steps are not that big a deal,” Albright said. They could be accomplished, he said, at a relatively small facility within months.

It must seem odd for casual readers to see 20 percent and 90 percent U235 lumped together as highly enriched uranium or to be be told that Iran will find it much easier to go from 20 to 90, than from 5 to 20. That’s not how everyday math works, where 5 and 20 are closer to “ten” and 90 rounds to “one hundred.”

For many readers (especially of this blog) the answer is obvious. But for those to whom it is not obvious, Francesco Calogero found a nice way to illustrate the same point to students at a previous ISODARCO meeting. The essential concept is understand enrichment as a process of removing undesirable isotopes (or more specifically, isolating the desirable ones).

So, imagine 1000 atoms of uranium. Seven of them will be the fissile isotope Uranium 235. The rest are useless Uranium 238. (If you are the sort of person who just said, “Hey! What about Uranium 234?” or other nitpicks this post is not aimed at you.)

To make typical reactor fuel, Iran or any other country would removes 860 of the non-U235 isotopes, leaving a U235:U238 ratio of 7:140 (~5 percent).

To make fuel for the TRR, Iran removes another 105 non-U235 atoms from the 140, leaving a ratio of 7:35 (20 percent).

To make a bomb, Iran needs only to remove 27 of the remaining 35 atoms, leading a ratio of 7:8 (~90 percent).

This is simplified illustration, of course, since some of the U235 ends up in the depleted stream as “tails” — but you get the idea.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Iran is a party to the NPT, but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.<16> After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,<52> the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.<17> This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,<53> after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.<54> Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.<55>

[bemildred]

37. I quoted the OP. nt

[IndianaGreen]

5. And Israel has over 200 bombs

so take a relax pill and ignore the neocon hysterics!

[iandhr]

7. And Israel is the same as Iran how?

Since when have Israel threatened to wipe another country off the map.


Since when does Israel support militia groups that try to kill the citizens of other countries.

[Tempest]

12. You missed the point

MAD worked during the cold war and it would work now without resorting to war.

[cowman]

15. thats where

your wrong. The U.S. and the former Soviet Union had no desire to destroy each other, OTOH, Iran would have no hesitation on nuking Israel because that bat shit crazy bunch of Ayatollahs and their bat shit crazy president believe that to die striking a blow against the hated enemy, IE, Israel, will lead them to paradise and 72 virgins.

[ronnie624]

20. Iran has not displayed a pattern of CONDUCT,

that would indicate it is inclined to attack other countries. If that criterion for predicting Iran's potential future behavior is examined, one can clearly see, Israel and the United States are far more likely to attack Iran (or just about any country) than vice versa. That conclusion is bolstered by the ability to recognize state propaganda when one sees it.

[Tempest]

21. Talk about bat shit crazy

You need to stop listening to the MSM and Israel propaganda.

Neither Iran or its president ever threatened to destroy Israel.

[truth2power]

28. I believe you are correct in your statement..

Here is my support for the above:

Shortly after Ahmadinejad's speech, Juan Cole posted a transliteration of that portion of the speech which caused so much controversy. It's about 5 or 6 lines and I have it somewhere but can't put my hands on it right now.

No, I don't read Farsi, but, assuming that the transliteration is accurate, I see enough cognates to English to infer that the Iranian president was referring to the regime in power in Israel, not the entire country or its people.

Similarly, if I expressed a hope that the GW Bush regime would vanish from the face of the earth, it would in no way imply a desire that all Americans should die, or that the country known as America should be utterly destroyed.

Mods may see this as a sub-thread and thus feel free to delete it.

[Pavulon]

29. "wiped off the map"

mistranslation?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tempest]

38. Didn't have to look it up because it was debunked a long time ago

You really shouldn't rely on translations by the U.S. and Israel.

[ronnie624]

43. Good advice, with regard to translations found in MSM.

Especially when there are controversial political issues at stake.

Middle East Media Research Institute

"MEMRI boasts 75,000 subscribers to its daily mailing list, including many journalists and academics, who receive regular updates about new translations. The institute also delivers briefings on Middle Eastern media to the FBI and Congress, Stalinsky .

"Video clips and translated transcripts are MEMRI's bread and butter. ... The institute has been the target of criticism for highlighting inflammatory statements from the vast stream of Middle Eastern media. Stalinsky that while there is editorial judgment in deciding what gets translated, the Institute also covers and amplifies the voices of Middle East reformers."

*****

Issues of reliability and veracity

MEMRI is operated by a group closely associated with the Israeli intelligence organizations. Now, in an article in Haaretz, we find that the Israeli Army has sought to plant stories about "terrorism" in the press, and

"Psychological warfare officers were in touch with Israeli journalists covering the Arab world, gave them translated articles from Arab papers (which were planted by the IDF) and pressed the Israeli reporters to publish the same news here." --Amos Harel, IDF reviving psychological warfare unit, Haaretz, January 25, 2005.

This should raise a question or two about the reliability and veracity of the stories peddled by MEMRI.

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute>

[papadog]

19. Israel doesn't threaten They're just trying to kill of all the Palestinians and take their land.

That arguement is weak and getting weaker. Politicians grandstand for votes and so did Amadenejad (sp. Israel on the other hand commits attrocities and expect big brother (the US) to cool things down. Jews are OK, Israel is evil.

[Pavulon]

30. Given the arsenal they have, they are doing a shit job

I mean fuck, if they really just wanted to stack bodies I think they could step it up a bit.

[Braulio]

32. We're not supposed to discuss that country

According to DU posting rules, we can't discuss the name of a certain country which is located in the Middle East. This discussion of that certain country can lead to punishment and you may lose your posting rights. Now that I clarified this point, I do want to point out the comment was made regarding the ownership of atomic weapons by a certain country in the Middle East, which does destabilize the region, and induce countries around it to wish they too had some of those toys.

[papadog]

9. Yeah, but its Israel so they have that going for them.

And since they won't admit to them it's offensive and a outrage, outrage I tells ya', that we even talk about it.

[demoleft]

10. i wouldn't want to relax while the neocons drag me to another middle east invasion. ;) n/t

[truth2power]

27. thanks IG. n/t

[msongs]

11. CIA just makes stuff up to sell more war supplies nt

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mnemosyne]

18. Do you have any knowledge of CIA history? n/t

[Tempest]

22. Apparently not

He probably thinks the CIA is staffed with cuddly Smurfs and all they do is spread peace and joy over the world.

[cowman]

34. for the most

part they have dedicated professionals who try to keep the country safe. The only time you hear about them is when they fuck up. If you want to bash the CIA, thats your right and have at it, myself, I will defend them when they are right

[Tempest]

39. You really need to educate yourself about the CIA

Destablizing and overthrowing democratically elected leaders is hardly keeping the country safe.

I guess you're too young to remember the CIA's role in overthrowing the democratically elected president of Iran and installing the Shah in his place. Now that really kept the country safe, didn't it?

[Mnemosyne]

41. I see the adoration continued.

He must be seriously young to be so clueless in this regard. Or...

Hopefully he decides to educate himself.

[on point]

16. Another junk demonization propaganda piece

What Iran has is low grade enriched uranium, appropriate for a reactor and LEGAL for them to produce under the NNPT treaty. What they DON'T have is highly enriched uranium needed to produce a bomb.

Now if you think that countries shouldn't be able to produce the fuel they need for nuclear reactors, then you are supporting one of the arguments of those against nuclear power - that it not only creates nuclear waste but increases the risk of nuclear proliferation.

BUT GET OFF THE NOTION THAT WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS ILLEGAL!!!
IT IS NOT.

On the other hand, the over throw of a sovereign nation that has not attacked us (like we threaten in this propaganda smear piece) is a WAR CRIME and is illegal.

[bananas]

35. No, it's highly-enriched uranium, and Iran is in violation of the NPT

Fuel-grade uranium is only 3-5%, this is 20%, and it doesn't take much to get it to weapons-grade.
Iran claims it is for a research reactor.
Iran is in violation of the NPT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Low-enriched uranium (LEU)

Low-enriched uranium' (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% 235U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU)

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U.

The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, reaching infinity at 6%235U.<2> For criticality experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.<3>

edit to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Iran is a party to the NPT, but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.<16> After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,<52> the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.<17> This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,<53> after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.<54> Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.<55>

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2620/iran-to-enrich-20-percent-leu

<snip>

70 percent of the work toward reaching weapons-grade uranium took place when Iran enriched uranium gas to 3.5 percent. Enriching it further to the 19.75 percent needed for the reactor is an additional “15 to 20 percent of the way there.”

Once the uranium is enriched above 20 percent, it is considered highly enriched uranium. The uranium would need to be enriched further, to 60 percent and then to 90 percent, before it could be used for a weapon. “The last two steps are not that big a deal,” Albright said. They could be accomplished, he said, at a relatively small facility within months.

It must seem odd for casual readers to see 20 percent and 90 percent U235 lumped together as highly enriched uranium or to be be told that Iran will find it much easier to go from 20 to 90, than from 5 to 20. That’s not how everyday math works, where 5 and 20 are closer to “ten” and 90 rounds to “one hundred.”

For many readers (especially of this blog) the answer is obvious. But for those to whom it is not obvious, Francesco Calogero found a nice way to illustrate the same point to students at a previous ISODARCO meeting. The essential concept is understand enrichment as a process of removing undesirable isotopes (or more specifically, isolating the desirable ones).

So, imagine 1000 atoms of uranium. Seven of them will be the fissile isotope Uranium 235. The rest are useless Uranium 238. (If you are the sort of person who just said, “Hey! What about Uranium 234?” or other nitpicks this post is not aimed at you.)

To make typical reactor fuel, Iran or any other country would removes 860 of the non-U235 isotopes, leaving a U235:U238 ratio of 7:140 (~5 percent).

To make fuel for the TRR, Iran removes another 105 non-U235 atoms from the 140, leaving a ratio of 7:35 (20 percent).

To make a bomb, Iran needs only to remove 27 of the remaining 35 atoms, leading a ratio of 7:8 (~90 percent).

This is simplified illustration, of course, since some of the U235 ends up in the depleted stream as “tails” — but you get the idea.

<snip>

[Braulio]

17. Gabon has enough uranium for 300 bombs

This article is just another example of subtle war mongering on the part of neocons and their Israel lobby handlers. Any country with fuel grade uranium stock has enough uranium to make bombs. The key is to understand fuel grade uranium isn't the same thing as weapons grade uranium. And it takes a hell of a lot of technology and work to get weapons grade uranium - which Iran doesn't have. This is just another one of those lies - similar to the "Iraq has WMDs" lie foisted on us to make us go fight Israel-inspired wars. Enough is enough.

[jpak]

23. but...but...but...nuclear power has no proliferation issues!

so "they" say

:puke:

[Karenina]

24. The double standard is breathtaking! n/t

[KoKo]

26. Talking Points from the usual Think Tank suspects....

[Elmore Furth]

40. Russia Alarmed By CIA View Of Iran's Weapons -- Would Consider More Sanctions

TORONTO (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday he was alarmed by U.S. assertions that Iran may have enough fuel for two nuclear weapons and warned that if confirmed the Islamic Republic may face new measures.

Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta told ABC's "This Week" television program that the agency thinks Iran has enough low-enriched uranium now for two weapons, but that Tehran would have to further enrich the material first.

Russian leaders rarely comment on CIA statements and Medvedev's sharp comments indicate the gulf that has grown between Moscow and Tehran over recent months.

"If it is shown that what the American special services say is true then it will of course make the situation more tense, and I do not exclude that this question would have to be looked at additionally," Medvedev said.




Russia Alarmed By CIA View Of Iran's Weapons

[MadHound]

42. 17 kilos at twenty percent?

Sorry, but that really more fuel grade than bomb grade. You would need almost twice that amount to have any hope of building one functional bomb. By the by, you can make a bomb out of as low an enrichment as 5-6%, but you need a hell of a lot of it.

No, what twenty percent enriched is used for is to fuel research reactors, or a more compact reactor, say something like a reactor on a sub.

But bomb quality, meh, not so much. If you're going for a bomb, you really want your numbers up in the ninties. The Iranians are using centrifuges to enrich their uranium, one of the slowest ways going.

This is just more fearmongering and saber rattling by the CIA again, looking to scare us into a war in Iran.