Ahmadinejad speaks, and UN reps walk

Remove all ads!

Actually, BTA, the engineering really is that simple. In fact, there's a famous series of experiments performed as part of the Manhattan Project to determine the critical mass. These "Tickling the Dragon" experiments manifested as various forms of bringing sizable, but non-critical masses together, closer and closer, and measuring the resultant energy output from the increasing fission reaction between them. These experiments repeatedly came too close and resulted in 'runaway energy outputs', essentially the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear reaction between the two masses. Several scientists died as a result of these accidents.

The most challenging part of the experiments? Keeping the masses seperate.

Of course, today such experiments are unneccesary. You can find critical mass numbers on Wikipedia.

 

As for games and intentions ...

​

Lest we get distracted:

Iran leaving the NPT beneficial to the US? Curious. What Bolton frankly admits here is that it was not about enforcing the NPT or international law, but about goading the Iranians into doing something stupid over procedural games at the IAEA and the UN to make Iran behave in a way furthering its isolation, supporting the then existing US hard line stance on Iran.

It is very clear that that is what the hard liners still have in mind. They are trying to force Obama's hand, and their renewed call for sanctions aims on the same goal as Bolton's call for harsher sanctions did then: Make Iran snap - and ensure that they behave in a way that domestically makes Obamas overtures to Iran political impossible.

 

BTA, the first point is that those deaths and engineering challenges only resulted from experiments that no longer need to be done. The second point is that the deaths happened as a result of accidentally initiating a chain reaction.

Simple construction of an atomic bomb follows:
Step 1: Determine your purity & critical mass (determining purity is a little tricky, but that's a function of enriching the uranium, which is quite tricky).
Step 2: Gather two masses, each amounting to somewhere between 51% and 99% of the critical mass (it's best to avoid both extremes).
Step 3: Construct a mechanism composed mostly of a long, hollow metal shaft, with some sort of propulsion mechanism on one end (hydraulics, gunpowder, springs, whatever works).
Step 4: Rig the trigger mechanism for the propulsion system to an altimeter.
Step 5: Secure the two masses on either end of the shaft (and by secure, we mean secure), with one connected to the propulsion mechanism so as to be launched when it is triggered.
Step 6: Attach this devise to some form of rocket/bomb/etc. Exact delivery mechanism will alter exactly how you set the altimiter (first time it hits the altitude, or second).

Step 7: Launch and hope no one figured out it was you.

Any modern rocketry aficionado could do most of this, and Iran has already proven they're more than capable of achieving steps 2-6. Step 1 we don't have proof of, but given the availability of the info, I have to guess it wouldn't pose a challenge. Step 7 is what the terrorists are for, should they really choose to go that far.

As I said earlier, the difficulty is in obtaining weapons-grade (or even weapons-capable) uranium.

Ragusa, yeah, that guy's a little over the edge. He doesn't represent my views at all, and hopefully he can't influence Obama or the UN too much.

 

That's pretty much how my physics teacher back in secondary school described it. Once you've got the nuclear material getting the engineering parts right is probably harder than the nuclear stuff. I'd be surprised if any determined country that put sufficient resources into it couldn't get it done eventually but it ain't going to happen overnight. If you're prepared to just go for a rough dirty bomb then I suppose it's simpler, albeit they still need a reliable rocket to reach the target.

NOG, from my limited understanding I'd be amazed if Iran couldn't put together a rough dirty bomb right now just from using medical stock, never mind all the 'civilan nuclear power' part. You basically just pack a load of nuclear material next to a bomb and set it off at the target. Nowhere near as good as a proper bomb of course but set it off in a crowded city and does it need to be? Iran supporting terrorists is much like when the US did it in Afghanistan to get one over the Soviets. Just because they find the terrorists useful is a long way from saying they're mad enough to give them nuclear weapons.

 

I only read that now

Of course but you keep telling us how easy Iran can build a nuke, and that the IAEA is unhappy with their compliance, inferring ... *wink* *wink* ...

Yes they haven't, and btw - Pakistan hasn't either.

FYI, neither Israel nor Pakistan, nor India for that matter, are members to the NPT and thus are not subject to obligations under the NPT.

Israel, India and Pakistan report their nuclear material to no one. In particular they haven't cooperated sufficiently to dispel all fears that they have a nuclear program. In fact, they have not cooperated at all with the IAEA and have conducted successful nuclear tests and are now nuclear powers (Israel is an undeclared one). Israel is refusing to even join the NPT.

What you wrote would be amusing, if it wasn't so depressingly ill-informed and confused.

 

A diagram of Little Boy, one of the two bombs dropped in WWII.

A more detailed description of gun-type fission bombs, which is what I've been describing.

Now, if you want to employ implosion techniques to reduce the necessary mass, then things get much more difficult, and I'm guessing that's what North Korea tried and failed to do. That, however, is optional; not necessary.

Maybe you should stop reading inferrences into my posts. I generally don't use them, so you're basically reading something that isn't there.

Well, Pakistan already has the bomb. It's kind of like closing the gate after all the sheep have escaped for them. Mind you, I'm not entirely comfortable with Pakistan having nukes, either, but they've got them, and they've been responsible so far.

Iran, however, is.

I didn't realize Pakistan and Israel weren't part of the NPT, though.

 

Sure.

 

Can you back that up with some reference? It appears for some there is reason for concern ...

Do you have even a vague idea of what an NPT member is obliged to do, NOG?

Indeed. Trifles, anyway.

 

Allow me to be a little more direct:

In order to detonate a nuclear fission bomb, all you have to do is bring sufficient masses within sufficiently close proximity. You don't have to charge them with an EM field, you don't have to compress them from any directions, you don't have to rotate any axis or generate spin or a particular temperature or anything. There's no polarization to be reversed, even. Anyone who can design a system that can remotely bring two objects into contact can design a basic nuclear bomb, provided the materials are provided.

What exactly do you think is more complicated?

Oh my. You know, you're not doing a very good job of calming me down on this. You've just as much as admitted that Iran secretly procured gas centrifuges capable of producing weapons-grade uranium from a black-market supplier and, from the sound of the article, they now aren't cooperating with the investigation into their materials and facilities (at least, not 100%). Combined with their non-compliance with the Additional Protocol, that may be kind of worrying.

Well, among other things, comply with the Additional Protocol. Well, at least as long as they signed the Additional Protocol, which Iran did.

 

Iran has a right to enrich Uranium under the NPT as long as it is under safeguards and destined for civilian use and fully accounted for. All of that is the case. Nobody wanted to sell them centrifuges legally, because they are long since under a de-facto (non-UN) Western/ US embargo. You expect them to bend over and take it? Of course they see where they can find the means to exercise their right. That doesn't mean it was legal or smart, but there you go - that's how people will act if you force their hand.

Brazil enriches Uranium, too, and nobody bothers about that, even though Brazil has had a secret nuclear weapons program. And no calls for sanctions, too!

One advantage of harsh and unfair sanctions or embargoes is plainly political - that you can then label defiance as justification for their harshness, and call for even harsher sanctions and steps on the escalation ladder - where we again are at the point of political games.

Yes, compliance with the Additional Protocol is compliance with the Additional Protocol. And a circle is a circle. A little more concrete perhaps, so that it is more than just an empty phrase?

The Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement in which Iran agreed to higher standards is an international treaty. International treaties require ratification to become binding law for a signatory country. Famously Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol, and it still isn't ratified by Congress. Thus is remains non-binding for the US. Same for the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement. Iran has a constitution, and the responsible body has not ratified the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement. Thus it is under international law non-binding for Iran. As a result of that, all former Iranian compliance was a mere gesture of goodwill, that was not returned (by a US administration that preferred not to talk with Iran, and even chastised the Swiss for daring to forward Iranian requests for dialogue to them), and thus the gesture of goodwill was abandoned by Iran. Why don't you go listen to John Bolton a couple posts above, just so you get the idea.

The safeguards agreements are being broken intentionally or unintentionally every day. That doesn't mean the sky is going to fall or that the NPT doesn't work or that the the IAEA isn't able to continue to do its job because of that.

The IAEA is an international agency, tasked with, read that carefully, providing all member nations with the benefits of the peaceful use to nuclear technology. Just to make it ever more clear to you: Under their mandate the IAEA has to support Iran in acquiring enrichment technology. The IAEA is also tasked with accounting for all nuclear material in civilian use by its members.

As long as a violation of a safeguards agreement doesn't interfere with the two tasks described above it don't constitute a material breach. The IAEA still testifies for a non-diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes by Iran and thus Iran is not in material breach of the NPT. That is why ElBaradei has not report the matter to the UN Security Council - there is no matter to report.

If ElBaradei didn't appear to support the US campaigns against Iraq and Iran then that was so because he took his job serious by not exceeding the mandate given to him by the member sates. That is essential for the servant of an international treaty organisation. He must not exceed the authority lend to him by sovereign states. That was a point my boss during my internship at the Kyoto Protocol drove home relentlessly.

 

I realize Iran has a right to enrich uranium, but they also take certain responsabilities along with that right. It seems they haven't lived up to some of those responsabilities.

Brazil's leadership doesn't frequently talk about wiping entire nations from the pages of history, or deny any racial/national groups' right to exist, nor are they in the middle of the most volatile socio-political climate in the world at the moment. Iran is. Context, Ragusa, is everything.

So you think asking them to comply with the Additional Protocol is enforcing a harsh and unfair sanction? I'll agree the embargoes were iffy, but I understand the justification considering Iran sanctions and sponsors terrorism.

Ok, I assumed Iran's ruling body had ratified the agreement since the IAEA apparently expects them to abide by it. I'll agree with you that this all makes little to no sense if they aren't bound by the agreement in the first place. What basis is there for sanctions if they're doing everything they're supposed to? I know you apparently think the UN is a puppet of the US and that it was just US politics driving all this, but I tend to disagree considering the past few years. I can't see the UN issuing sanctions against Iran just because the US didn't like the way they were doing their business.

No, but it does mean that there are facilities, records, and areas that Iran isn't letting the IAEA see. That's what non-compliance with the Additional Protocol means. Whether they're legally required to under international law or not, any nation with Iran's history, in Iran's political climate, with Iran's access to materials is going to be looked at very carefully if they start denying records to groups like the IAEA.

I'm not arguing with that. I'll give you a hint: Iran aquired that technology a number of years ago and has been using it ever since.

This is what the issue is with.

I'll agree here. I don't really see what your point overall is, though. Are you saying that, because the IAEA hasn't found a smoking gun, that we should all ignore the issue and get on with our lives? Or are you merely saying that a situation that warrants some attention has been blown out of proportion by politics and fear-mongering?

 

Indeed. Amusingly, this is what Brazilian Vice President Jose Alencar said a couple days back - that possession of nuclear weapons would enable his country to deter potential aggressors and give the South American nation greater “respectability” on the world stage. Yes, context is everything.

The hype is that the nukes in Iran are for the hard liners still a means to achieve regime change - or everything other than a Great Bargain. As I said, it's about torpedoing the talks with Iran, and forcing Obama's hand.

Everybody does that in the Middle East. Nothing new, except that Iran is the best of the lot. Their surrogates win. That's what disturbed Israel so much. The Iranians are the first opponent they couldn't mop the floor with. That's a major part of the problem Israel has with Iran, with a generous dose of hurt ego.

Politics. You have no idea how shrewd and subtle John Bolton at the UN has been furthering the Bush administration's cause of a hard line on everything, including Iran, in his characteristic way. It was because of US pressure that these sanctions were enacted.

Iran hasn't attacked any country since a couple hundred years at least, and they have never used nukes, too. The US has done both. Historical record is a tricky thing. Iran is still a sovereign country. Just in case you didn't know. The US, France, UK, Russia, China don't let the IAEA look into their military facilities as well. I agree to the extent that they are playing with fire, not because they would be violating the law, but because they could haplessly invite a US or Israeli military strike. Seen realistically, hard power tends to trump international law.

They have under the NPT an inalienable right to use that technology.

Precisely that it is not. _THE_ _IAEA_ _HAS_ _TESTIFIED_ _TO_ THE_ _NON-DIVERSION_ _OF_ _NUCLEAR_ _MATERIAL_ !!! Did that get through to you? They know everything and know where it is and what it is intended for. There is no accountability issue.

There are allegation that Iran is being demanded to disprove - mind you, not by the IAEA but by 'some Member States'. As for that, just keep in mind that Iran can't prove a negative.

No, I am saying that the US and Iran are long talking past each other, and Iran's reaction when there is no reciprocation by the addressee side is a show of resolution - as in a stop of cooperation, or missile tests. Iran might be after nukes, but we don't know that. But they have much less of an incentive to go for nukes when they are being guaranteed a degree of safety. The Iranian leadership has not forgotten the Iraqi invasion and the war with Iraq, it has defined them. They are very resolute in not wanting to see that happen again. That is a factor that needs to be addressed.

 

So, of course, there's no problem with it as long as everyone does it. And, as long as everyone does it, it certainly means there's no risk of providing them with nuclear potential.

Here's my question: How can they conclusively testify to that when they also admit that Iran has not allowed them access to all their facilities and/or records? That's kind of like an officer searching someone's family room and then declaring there are no murder weapons anywhere in the house, isn't it?

Actually, in this case, they could do pretty close. By allowing free access to the IAEA inspectors (i.e. complying with the Additional Protocol) they could pretty well prove they don't have anything to hide.

I think Iran realizes that it and Iraq are very different. I think they realize that Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden are very different. I think they realize that 2003 and 2009 are very different.

Mind you, I don't think they want to seriously risk invasion, but I do think they realize they have a lot more leeway (possibly even so far as to openly procuring nuclear weapons as long as they don't use them or dispurse them). Given that, and given the apparent political conditions inside Iran, I'd prever they not have the chance (though I'd much prefer political solutions).

 

Uh...who ever said anything about giving them the technology? They have a right to develop such technology on their own, though, and this is a right that we cannot take away.

You assume that the IAEA takes governments at their word. It does not. That said, we don't allow the IAEA access to our facilities, so we are just as much in violation as Iran. The western world can't rightly expect Iran to adhere to a standard it refuses to follow.

If they're smart enough to figure all that out, I reckon they're also smart enough to figure out that another Bush-Doctrine adherent could be running the show in 3 short years. They'd also be canny enough to realize that it is our legislature, not the president, that ultimately decides when we go to war, and that chicken-hawks could once again dominate that legislature after the 2010 election.

 

Drew, they already have the technology they're entitled to. Now, I'll agree that they shouldn't be ordered to cease their enrichment program (which they have been, which is stupid), but they should be subject to more scrutiny.

The US doesn't have a history of supporting terrorism or threatening to wipe their enemies from the pages of history. Iran does. There's reason different rules should apply to Iran than to the US.

Or they could decide it's worth the gamble to attain that security now.

 

Threats mean nothing. Actions are what matter, and as Ragusa pointed out already, Iran hasn't attacked another nation in over 100 years. By contrast, just five years after World War II, the US was at war in Korea. Almost immediately after Korea, we were helping the French in Indochina and were bombing not only Vietnam but Cambodia and Laos.

In the 1950s, we started our covert operations, overthrowing the governments of Iran and Guatemala. Almost as soon as we got involved in Vietnam, we began sending military troops into the Dominican Republic. At the same time, we were giving a great deal of monetary aid to Suharto, the dictator of Indonesia, helping him carry on an internal war against his opposition. In 1975, we moved to providing critical support to Indonesia's brutal campaign to subdue the people of East Timor, in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed.

Then we get to Reagan. Under Reagan, we began a covert war throughout Central America, in El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and especially in Nicaragua, creating a counterrevolutionary force called the Contras, dubbed "freedom fighters" by Reagan. Using modern labeling conventions, the Contras would have more appropriately been dubbed "terrorists". The case of the Contras and Indonesia stand as prime examples of the US supporting terrorists (the Contras) or terrorist Regimes (Suharto). The United States attacks other nations without provocation all the time. Iran, on the other hand, does not. If the US really wants to see Iran submit to IAEA inspections, it should consider complying with the IAEA itself.

 

And I think much of the US's history is deplorable, but we had nukes for all that time and didn't use a single one. You're right, actions do matter, and when you have precise evidence about a particular risk (i.e. using nuclear weapons in acts of aggression or distributing them, by action or negligence, to terrorist organizations), those actions should be considered. The US has had nuclear weapons for over 50 years, and has only used them twice, in quick succession, as soon as they were available (and arguably in an effort to save the lives of both soldiers and civilians in Japan). That's a good track record.

For Iran's record, the first thing we need to understand is that the current Iran hasn't been around for 100 years. It's only about 30 years old and, in that time, has sponsored terrorist attacks all over the place. They haven't allowed their chemical or biological weapons to get into the hands of these terrorists (that we know of), and that's a good track record. Nonetheless, I don't think it warrants a free pass for nuclear weapons development.

Now, of course, no one's talking about giving them one (officially), but if you don't want them developing such weapons, the only way to be sure is to keep a close eye on them.