Iran has enough uranium for five nuclear weapons, claims US thinktank

[alp227]

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

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I don't know "The Institute for Science and International Security."

Who are they?

[MrScorpio]

3. I just did a quick check of the place

The first thing that popped up was its location in DC. I instantly recognized that location as sitting directly next door to the HERITAGE FOUNDATION.

I know the area well.

It's safe to say that it's a Right Wing propaganda factory offshoot of Heritage.

[cstanleytech]

4. Wouldnt surprise me if that turned out to be the case. nt

[bananas]

11. No it's not, and the estimate is probably correct

This is David Albright's organization, it has nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation, and his estimate is probably correct.

[MrScorpio]

15. Alright, I take back the crack about Heritage...

Just because his HQ and Heritage's are neighbors, that should not necessarily mean that they're connected.

However, there still isn't any concrete proof that the Iranians are making nuclear bombs.

[bananas]

27. He didn't say or imply they're making nuclear bombs.

Nobody thinks they're making bombs now, the issue is what safeguards are needed for their enrichment program.

[MrScorpio]

31. If there was no implication that the Iranians are making bombs…

Then why does the title of the story read, "Iran has enough uranium for five nuclear weapons, claims US think tank?" Perhaps the weapons they're saying that the Iranians are making with all that fissionable material are nuclear snow balls.

Who knows?

That title seems a little too ambiguous to figure out what they're trying to get at, I figure.

And by "nobody" thinking that they're making bombs, that's what you're calling the think tank... Am I right?

[kitt6]

19. Research

Thank you. Research is GOOD!

[Jackpine Radical]

58. I'm up to my ears in research.

I don't have time to go rediscovering the wheel every time I have a question that someone here is probably already looking into.

Thanks for the snark.

[blm]

23. EXTREMELY likely. Just in 2006 Kerry said that Iran was at LEAST 5 years away from having the

technology to produce even 1 nuclear weapon, so it is difficult to believe they are advanced enough at this point to have produced as many as this group is claiming.

[bananas]

12. It's David Albright's organization, and he's probably right. nt

[cstanleytech]

18. Really? Is that the Albright that said back in 2002

"In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now. How many, how could they deliver them? I mean, these are the big questions."

and then later in 2003 said

"If there are no weapons of mass destruction, I'll be mad as hell. I certainly accepted the administration claims on chemical and biological weapons. I figured they were telling the truth. If there is no [unconventional weapons program], I will feel taken, because they asserted these things with such assurance."
That Albright?

[bananas]

32. He's better at physics than he is at chemistry and biology

This is simple division: how much u235 they have divided by how much to make one bomb = how many bombs they can make.

[cstanleytech]

40. No, this is fiction until something more concrete comes along to prove otherwise

it would be foolish to react simply based upon the word from Albright and his group especially given his past history.

[JackRiddler]

68. How good is he at NOT being a propaganda tool? That's the only question...

that matters after his performance in 2003.

Everyone who fed into the great lie of WMDs is discredited for life unless they put on some pretty dramatic mea culpa.

[freshwest]

38. Did they count how many nuclear bombs America has in its arsenal?

[cstanleytech]

41. Not very relevant imo to the topic on hand, sorry. nt

[freshwest]

43. It is to me. United States strategic nuclear weapons arsenal:

Operational American strategic nuclear forces, 2009:

Current stockpile 5,113 total

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States#United_States_strategic_nuclear_weapons_arsenal

I doubt Iran is going to bomb us while Obama is in office. We know what the GOP plan has been since 2008 or earlier, with the Bomb Iran song. And who knows, if Mittens gets the launch codes, we might finally get to enjoy that Armageddon. So I'll devote my energies on keeping Obama in office and not get my knickers in a twist over Iran's future capabilities. Because we've got enough firepower to vaporize them and everyone knows it. No amount of fearmongering is going to change that fact.

[cstanleytech]

44. You are right, it probably wouldnt happen while he is in office however

its not out of the realm of possibility that they wouldnt when or if they ever manage to build them, after all Iran is still largely controlled by the same people who thought it was ok to take hostage an embassy and call for fatwā on a man for writing a book.

[freshwest]

45. More dramatic, but much less dangerous that our homegrown wackos who are much closer...

We've got wing nuts who make them look tame and they want to turn us into something like Iran. The battle is on the home front and it always has been.

I think the media creates fear of the faraway and exotic menace to get our minds off what's happening under our noses, to make is seem as if we are so different, thus immune to fascism and radical religion.



Stay cool, cstanleytech.

[cstanleytech]

46. Meh they (the tea party and the fanatics in Iran) are both equally dangerous but ya I get

what your saying about the media and its something we need to keep our eyes on as well.
Anyway have a good night, its 2:31 am here and I am going to try and get atleast an hour or two of sleep if I can.

[JackRiddler]

75. Entirely relevant. Who decides "relevance"? The Pentagon? Netanyahu?

[cstanleytech]

77. imo = in my opinion and last I checked we are still allowed to have those. Thanks for

your contribution nonetheless.

[JackRiddler]

80. Yes we are, and no obligation to back them either. Lucky for you.

[cstanleytech]

81. Correction, its "Yes we are, and no obligation to back them either. Lucky for us all."

And yes, we are lucky.

[JackRiddler]

82. Yes, we're all lucky to share in the freedom to present FMA opinions.

[legin]

66. from Scott Ritter

...

I have no objection to an academically based think tank capable of producing sound analysis about the myriad nuclear-based threats the world faces today. But David Albright has a track record of making half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources seem mainstream. He breathes false legitimacy into these factually challenged stories by cloaking himself in a résumé which is disingenuous in the extreme. Eventually, one must begin to question the motives of Albright and ISIS. No self-respecting think tank would allow itself to be used in such an egregious manner. The fact that ISIS is a creation of Albright himself, and as such operates as a mirror image of its founder and president, only underscores the concerns raised when an individual lacking in any demonstrable foundation of expertise has installed himself into the mainstream media in a manner that corrupts the public discourse and debate by propagating factually incorrect, illogical and misleading information.

...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080626_the_nuclear_expert_who_never_was

[Martin Eden]

5. "if it was further refined "

My aunt ***IF*** she had balls, would be my uncle.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. "Balls!" said the Queen. "If I had two,

I'd be King"

[boppers]

20. It's 3.5% your uncle.

They need to make it 90% your uncle to be useful in weaponry.

That's a long way off.

So, uhm, don't start changing your family holiday cards anytime soon?

[Martin Eden]

26. Maybe so, but ...

... my uncle's weapon is AWESOME (I've heard it puts Milton Berle's to shame).

In the hands of the Iranians (they'd have to use 2 hands, for sure) neither my aunt nor your aunt nor Rosie O'Donnell for that matter would be safe!

[boppers]

28. Well, they'd still only have 5 shots.

I hear Rosie can run pretty fast, considering.

[Monk06]

62. 3.5% is yellow cake which is feedstock and is not classified as refined uranium. Commercial grade is

60% and weapons grade is 86%. It takes a shitload of yellowcake to get to weapons grade.

This is another bullshit story by some bullshit right wing think tank who count on nobody knowing anything about nuclear energy and uranium refinement.

[boppers]

65. Correction: It only takes a small amount of yellowcake to produce some weapons grade uranium.

Not enough to be really usable in a weapon, but that's US american math education for you....

Think about it for a second. A single drum, one 55 gallon drum, of yellowcake, can produce some weapons-grade uranium.

...If only a few atoms of it.

The right wing counts on it because math isn't "important", to both the left and right in US america. Neither can be bothered with the actual numbers.

If you live in a house, or on a street, or on earth, somewhere, you are living on, near, or with, weapons grade uranium.

Refinement is the hard part.

[sarcasmo]

6. Same garbage they were saying about Iraq. The war drum beats louder.

[Warpy]

7. Think tank = men in suits with their heads up their asses

looking for more scary stuff to pull out of there.

I think we need to look at who is supporting that particular think tank. I think we'd find the usual group of neocon billionaires who make big bucks off war.

[KansDem]

8. Well, then send in "The Institute for Science and International Security" to get it.

Hire GW Bush to lead. He has experience with bogus invasions.

Leave the rest of us alone...

[bluestateguy]

9. I have a great chocolate chip cookie recipie that I found

Here:

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/best-chocolate-chip-cookies/

Ingredients

1 cup butter, softened
1 cup white sugar
1 cup packed brown sugar
2 eggs
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
3 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
2 teaspoons hot water
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 cups semisweet chocolate chips
1 cup chopped walnuts

Directions

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C).
Cream together the butter, white sugar, and brown sugar until smooth. Beat in the eggs one at a time, then stir in the vanilla. Dissolve baking soda in hot water. Add to batter along with salt. Stir in flour, chocolate chips, and nuts. Drop by large spoonfuls onto ungreased pans.
Bake for about 10 minutes in the preheated oven, or until edges are nicely browned.

[bupkus]

33. When you find a great recipe

Always follow it for consistently excellent results.

[freshwest]

36. Too much work! Just eat the chocolate chips outta the bag and get it over with!

[Iliyah]

10. Think tank, the guys in suits

that will send our sons and daughters in harms way, as their children go on yacht trips, and their parents continue to beat the war drums.

The think tank tha probably have world war three bunkers while the rest of the world suffers. Yes these guys and gals.

[freshwest]

37. +1,000. You win the thread.

[harun]

61. The guys that don't have to bother with silly elections, yet somehow they matter more than everyone

else.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. Says a US think tank...who would profit incredibly from an endless war economy?

NO WAR ON IRAN!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

16. And how many nuclear weapons does the USA have?

Oh that's right, were the responsible one, we wouldn't wipe out a country using a lie. HA HA HA HA

[cstanleytech]

25. "We" didnt lie, now Bush, Cheney and some of those in their administration probably did

but the problem is proving that they did it on purpose which we probably will never know one way or the other in our lifetime seeing as so much of that stuff is still sealed and probably will remain sealed for a good long while.

[Figaro78]

56. Never mind the USA...

...how many nuclear weapons do the kill-crazy Israelis have?

Oops, there I go being an anti Semite again!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

60. The Pakistanis have many nuclear weapons

they haven't been very friendly lately and if Is tries to bomb Iran Pakistan will be right in there (it's not far).

Diplomacy is the best way of solving this

[Mosby]

72. why do you think Israelis are "kill crazy"

I think the Israelis are a peaceful people but those around them want to kill them and eliminate the nation from the region. The history in the area supports my opinion but I would be interested to hear your views.

[boppers]

17. So, not enough to level a single metropolitan city.

Severely damage, yes, level, no.

In other words, less than 1/100,000th of the current US arsenal of munitions.

[longship]

21. Where to start here?

First, as another response has aptly pointed out here, consider the source of this information.

Second, consider the science behind this claim. Separating U235 (the weaponizable isotope) from spent fuel is a very difficult task. A very difficult task. It is not something you can hide if you are intent on doing it. You cannot do it chemically since all uranium is chemically identical. Instead you have to do it by mass. But that is an extremely difficult task which takes rather large resources, none of which could be hidden from, let's say, US spy satellites.

But people in the US are so scientifically illiterate, to say nothing of the press, that they can get away with this kind of reportage.

If Iran is making a nuke, Obama will know about it well in advance. In the Iran talks, he is negotiating from strength.

[think4yourself]

22. Here we go again, now.

The Guardian is usually pretty trustworthy.
I don't know why this story was planted there, nor why they presstituted it.
They're going to need better propaganda. People aren't buying this shit anymore.

[dipsydoodle]

30. Reuters had already posted it earlier today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=129179

[tcaudilllg]

24. I hope to goodness they make a nuclear weapon

Because nothing prevents war like MAD.

To not have the threat of war with Iran hanging over our heads would be a great boon for the united states.

[Purveyor]

34. +1

[oberliner]

50. This is disturbing

I cannot believe that hoping Iran makes a nuclear weapon would be a sentiment expressed here (and with a +1 to boot).

To actually believe another country having nuclear weapons, especially one that is non-democratic, would lead to more stability is off the charts bizarre.

[bananas]

64. Very disturbing. nt

[sulphurdunn]

29. The only three countries

on earth not in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are: Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. All of them have nukes. Israel won't even admit it has any. The western powers are not rattling sabres at any of them.

[cstanleytech]

42. I thought N Korea was under an embargo or something? nt

[sulphurdunn]

52. Yes, but no-one

is threatening war with N. Korea.

[cstanleytech]

53. Thats because its to risky due to China being a close ally which means

China could get pulled into it and no one not even China wants to do that.

[sulphurdunn]

55. Yes

Furthermore, no-one is crazy enough to put a conventional army in the field against anyone in possession of even one nuclear weapon.

[oberliner]

49. India, Pakistan, and Israel did not sign the treaty

They can't be not in compliance with something that they haven't agreed to.

[sulphurdunn]

51. Since 1970

the treaty has been closed to new signatories. New states formally accede to the treaty. Neither Israel, Pakistan or India have done so. North Korea has withdrawn. One is not required to have agreed to something to be in non-compliance with it.

[naaman fletcher]

35. This is a non-story

Nobody has ever doubted they have this. These assholes even go and call it "low-enriched" as if that implies something bad, when what they really ought to be saying is "stuff you can't use for nuclear bombs".

uranium is easy to come by.

The difficulty is:

A. Enriching it.
B. Constructing the bomb
C. Delivering it (significantly more difficult that one would think)


These guys who wrote this are a bunch of propagandist assholes.

[magic59]

39. Oh Oh, the war drums are beating again

The news media smells blood and their going to milk this cash cow, another shock and awe, a few trillion down the drain not to mention 10 dollar oil, a depression and a million or so lives lost.
Mass entertainment for dumbed downed ameriKans.

[bowens43]

47. How would Iran having a nuke be worse

then the US or Israel having a nuke?

When those who actually have nukes give them up, then they have a right to ask others to do the same. Until them , the US Israel and the rest need to STFU.

[oberliner]

48. Isn't nuclear non-proliferation something you support?

Most of the world, generally speaking, agrees that the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good idea.

Isn't that the foundation of the NPT which Iran is a party to?

[JackRiddler]

69. Yes. Which is why Israel poses the greatest nuclear threat on the planet.

[Mosby]

73. that's an absurd statement.

[JackRiddler]

74. Your choice of adjectives does not change the truth: Israel is a danger to world peace.

The rogue state of Israel flouts international law with its settlements on occupied territory and many atrocities committed against the captive people of the Palestinian territories. Unlike Iran, Israel has started wars on its neighbors several times. The Israeli government regularly threatens to launch an unprovoked war on Iran. Israel possesses 150-400 nuclear weapons, depending on the estimate. It does not allow international inspections of its program (unlike Iran) and is not a signatory to the NPT. Given its history of aggression, Israel presents the world's greatest threat by far to engage in first use of nuclear weapons. Even if it had a nuclear weapon, Iran would never assure its own immediate total destruction through first use. All this is elementary and known to the world, and disputed seriously only within the bizarre bubble of American politics.

[Mosby]

76. You have it completely backwards

Iran is a rogue state that is supporting the ongoing killing in Syria with money, weapons and personnel support. The death toll in Syria is over 10,000 now. They also support two terrorist orgs in Hezbollah and Hamas, providing them with money and weapons so they can attack Israel. Through Hezbollah they control large parts of Lebanon.

The government and religious leaders in Iran have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and refuse to comply with IAEA inspectors requests. Many world leaders have publicly stated their opposition to these developments in Iran including Germany, Italy France, and Canada.

It's SO bad now that Saudi Arabia and Turkey have publicly stated that if Iran obtains nukes they will start their own nuclear weapon program. No way to blame that on Israel, clearly Iran is the biggest threat to world peace right now.

[GeorgeGist]

54. Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon

Douche'.

[AvBerkel]

57. Gas prices falling good for Obama... Time for Iran war talk. Problem Solved.

Gasoline consumption has been down, cars on American roads are getting more MPG thanks to EPA regs, Big Oil has been pumping record amounts of oil & even exporting out of the US. Romney campaign issue of Obama energy policy failure fades. Iran war drums beating should solve the NeoCon problem. Watch those oil futures climb as this story builds.

[AverageJoe90]

59. They may very well be on to something.

But it's also possible that they may be part of a badjacketing effort as well. Unfortunately, people who have genuinely tried to warn the world about what Tehran IS planning have had their reputations tarnished by the crooked neo-cons who only want a war with Iran so more Middle Easterners can die.

Truth is, I don't want to start a war with Iran because we need the people on the side of democracy and bombing their country in an offensive war will only prove to be a major PR setback. As it is, the Israelis are still gunning for Iran themselves....though many of the citizenry would prefer Tel Aviv to proceed with caution instead of Ramboing thru things like Netan-YAHOO's been wanting to do for some time now.

[Prometheus Bound]

63. David Albright - the media's go-to guy on Iraq's WMDs in 2002.

What an asshole.

[alarimer]

67. And the drum beat for war begins again.

Let's not buy their lies this time.

[JackRiddler]

70. So if they make five bombs out of that they'll still have 115 to 395 fewer than Israel.

And 10,000 - 40,000 fewer than the US, depending on what the military's done to dispose of old artillery shells and such. (The government that suggests we should fear Iran once made nuclear artillery shells.)

Should I worry about Iran having nuclear fuel that they could (but probably) won't make into bombs?

Sounds like I should worry about Israel - a country that, unlike Iran, has launched wars on its neighbors in the past.

[Maeve]

71. Maybe....Iran is ALWAYS "five years from the bomb"--see link inside

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/02/yep-media-matters-is-right-iran-has.html

The Rude One links to Media Matters article, but here is his column from February with additions notes.

[eek MD]

79. Personally, I don't think ANYONE should have nuclear weapons.....

That includes Iran, Israel, and the US! They serve no purpose except to inflict massive casualties to innocent civilians (among other devastating environmental consequences), which is something that anyone would abhor.

To expect other countries not to pursue nuclear weapons when we refuse to give up our own is hypocritical. How on earth do you justify keeping weapons away from one country when you steadfastly refuse to give up your own?

[woo me with science]

83. Bullshit blood-for-money garbage.

Many more will die to line the pockets of billionaires.

Occupy now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

84. More fear mongering from the usual suspects. n/t