Iran Two to Three Years A-Bomb

[singern]

Report: Iran Two to Three Years From Building A-Bomb
Wednesday, January 31, 2007

LONDON — Iran is as little as two to three years away from building an atomic bomb, a leading security think tank reported Wednesday.

The estimate given by the International Institute for Strategic Studies is lower than that given by John Negroponte, the head of national intelligence for the United States, who said that Tehran could build such a weapon in as few as four years.
The London-based institute said domestic opposition to Iran's outspoken president could still put a brake on its contentious nuclear program.


IMO:
I dont believe we will know the truth until its too late and Iran "drops a bomb on us all" so to speak.

[J.S.N.]

egads you could spin it that east timor is four years way from an a-bomb. hey man they get some uranium, centerfuges, bomb technology, missiles, stations, fuel, holy **** man they could have the Bomb.

[Flagg]

I thought i'd just stumbled into the Conspiracy Theory thread.

[singern]

Thats cute,
but I didnt write this story, nor did I hear it from Joe Momma down at the barber shop, who heard it from a hooker at the Crab Shack............, Like it or not this is a legitimate news story posted on just about every news website on the planet.

[juicedOUTbrain]

Thats cute,
.........., Like it or not this is a legitimate news story posted on just about every news website on the planet.

No, the report was written by a pro-war think tank full of members/ shareholders from all the big british and american defence companies. Ever hear of war profiteering, or the military industrial complex, or are those just conspiracy theories too. Research these names: Member List

The National Intelligence Agency has recently concluded that Iran is at least 10 years away from making a key ingredient for the atomic bomb...

From the Washington Post

"A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis."

"The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking."

I think they realize if they ever used a nuclear device offensively they would literally be wiped off the map. Stop posting all this bullshit propaganda..Im beginning to think you must work for the defence deparrment

[Kärnfysikern]

Report: Iran Two to Three Years From Building A-Bomb
Wednesday, January 31, 2007

LONDON — Iran is as little as two to three years away from building an atomic bomb, a leading security think tank reported Wednesday.

The estimate given by the International Institute for Strategic Studies is lower than that given by John Negroponte, the head of national intelligence for the United States, who said that Tehran could build such a weapon in as few as four years.
The London-based institute said domestic opposition to Iran's outspoken president could still put a brake on its contentious nuclear program.


IMO:
I dont believe we will know the truth until its too late and Iran "drops a bomb on us all" so to speak.

They are also alone in that oppinion. The CIA doesnt agree, Russia doesnt agree, IAEA doesnt agree, the bulletin doesnt aggre.

BTW is agree spelled like that or like aggre?

[ecivon]

They are also alone in that oppinion. The CIA doesnt agree, Russia doesnt agree, IAEA doesnt agree, the bulletin doesnt aggre.

BTW is agree spelled like that or like aggre?

The CIA and the IAEA have both said that Iran is nowhere near, or capable of building nuclear warheads.

[Kärnfysikern]

Thats what I mean. Everyone say that Iran is far from having a nuke. Except this think tank.

[Logan13]

Thats what I mean. Everyone say that Iran is far from having a nuke. Except this think tank.

By many accounts they will not have enough of their own enriched material until somewhere between 2001-2016. But with the recent situation that was busted by Georgian officials, it has become more probable that they could bring enriched material from other sources. This is the scenario that I find most troubling.
Iran Will Have Nuclear Weapons by 2008
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...349.shtml?s=lh
WASHINGTON -- Iran announced over the weekend that it was launching a bomb-scale uranium enrichment program, despite a U.N. Security Council demand that it freeze its nuclear activities.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defiantly told a group of students Saturday that Iran had started the installation of 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges at its fuel plant near Natanz, calling it "the first step toward industrial production."

Nuclear Buildup Intensifies

Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Persian Gulf responded Sunday by announcing their intention to launch a joint nuclear development effort "for peaceful purposes."

The United States and Europe have been seeking United Nations sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing programs, but Russia and China have refused to go along.

"Resistance of the Iranian nation in the past year forced them to retreat tens of steps over the Iran's nuclear issue," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Israeli nuclear experts told NewsMax that the installation of the 3,000 centrifuge "pilot plant" at Natanz was a key turning plant in Iran's nuclear weapons development.

"The Iranians are calling this a ‘pilot plant,'" one Israeli analyst noted. "But this isn't a pilot plant; 3,000 centrifuges give them the capability of producing one significant quantity of nuclear fuel per year."

A "significant quantity" (SQ) is the amount of nuclear material needed to manufacture one nuclear device, currently defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as 25 kilograms of uranium, and just 8 kilograms of plutonium.
Right On Schedule

The Israeli government believes it will take Iran approximately nine months to get the 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz up and running, and another year to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a first bomb.

So far, Iran is right on schedule.

In June, the Israelis were estimating that it would take Iran six months to master the technology of the two experimental uranium enrichment cascades they had installed at Natanz. Iran announced that it had mastered that technology earlier this month.

If the Iranians continue to hold to the timeline of their public declarations to the IAEA, they will become a nuclear weapons power by September 2008, just before the next U.S. presidential elections.

But that timeline for Iran's nuclear weapons development is based solely on what Iran has told the IAEA.

"We know that Iran is not telling the full story," an Israeli nuclear expert told NewsMax. "They are not telling lies, but they are not telling the full story."

"There can be no doubt that Iran has a clandestine, parallel nuclear weapons program," a senior Israeli intelligence official told NewsMax last week.

Start of New Arms Race

Even countries that do not agree with the United States that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to international security agree that Iran's actions are likely to spawn a nuclear arms race.

"There is a real concern that Iran's nuclear ambitions could fuel similar ambitions across the Middle East," a Western diplomat in Vienna told NewsMax on Monday.

So far, the United States has not reacted officially to the announcement from Saudi Arabia and its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council of their intention to launch peaceful nuclear research.

However, diplomats in Vienna speculated that the Saudis might be trying to "get in before the door closes" sometime in the next two or three years, once a U.S.-backed program to establish an international "nuclear fuel bank" goes on line.

The U.S. is supporting efforts by developing countries to build nuclear power plants, as long as they forego acquiring sensitive nuclear fuel cycle technologies, as Iran is doing. The nuclear fuel bank would give such countries guaranteed supplies of nuclear fuel, virtually eliminating the proflieration risks.

Paula A. DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance, stated that the report of GCC nuclear developments was troubling.

"If true, it underscores an important aspect of Iran's noncompliance with its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations, namely that one nation's noncompliance, if not addressed and corrected, creates new security concerns for the region and teaches other countries that there are no negative consequences for that behavior," she said.

[Ufa]

Iran is about to get nuked. Wake up. Bush knows that if he does
nothing the window of opportunity is lost for at lest 6 to 10 years.
Maybe forever. Why do you think the navy is moving air craft
carriers into gulf.

[Logan13]

Iran is about to get nuked. Wake up. Bush knows that if he does
nothing the window of opportunity is lost for at lest 6 to 10 years.
Maybe forever. Why do you think the navy is moving air craft
carriers into gulf.

I did not think of you as such of an alarmist. That is silly.

[juicedOUTbrain]

How about If Iran ever used a nuke against the US or Israel they would get wiped off the map, literally...I think they probably know that...

I dont blame him for wanting nuclear power, and i dont blame him for wanting to defend his country from an imminent US strike. I think the North Korea situation showed him if he could build a bomb fast enough, maybe we wouldnt invade...

[rafael]

its only fair if one country has nukes..that others have it. after all who made one country right and another wrong?

[Logan13]

its only fair if one country has nukes..that others have it. after all who made one country right and another wrong?

There is good and bad in the world, like it or not.

[Logan13]

How about If Iran ever used a nuke against the US or Israel they would get wiped off the map, literally...I think they probably know that...

I dont blame him for wanting nuclear power, and i dont blame him for wanting to defend his country from an imminent US strike. I think the North Korea situation showed him if he could build a bomb fast enough, maybe we wouldnt invade...

What about if a small nuke is given to a terrorist group? Who would you attack than? This is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.

[rafael]

There is good and bad in the world, like it or not.

i like to think that everyone is good untill proven otherwise. untill iran attacks anyone...theyre just doing the best for themselves. and i dont think anyone has a right to say what they can and cant do

[Kärnfysikern]

By many accounts they will not have enough of their own enriched material until somewhere between 2001-2016. But with the recent situation that was busted by Georgian officials, it has become more probable that they could bring enriched material from other sources. This is the scenario that I find most troubling.

But that is a dangerous way to think. Instead of trying to find resonable evidence it turns into trying to bust Iran by any means possible.

We can imagine a butload of odd scenarios. But we always have to work on what we can prove. People have been busted for smuggling enrichened uranium before. We need evidence that Iran is trying to buy.

If they could I dont think they would push this whole centrifuge issue, if they could buy black market uranium they would just put a smile on and hold enrichment while they are building a bomb in some basement somewhere.

[Kärnfysikern]

What about if a small nuke is given to a terrorist group? Who would you attack than? This is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.

There are ways to identify the origin of the bomb after it has blown up. After all the nuclear weapon states are excluded it would be obvious its Iran.

[Logan13]

i like to think that everyone is good untill proven otherwise. untill iran attacks anyone...theyre just doing the best for themselves. and i dont think anyone has a right to say what they can and cant do

I hope that the "proof" doesn't find itself into your apartment. So the 9/11 hijackers were good, until they hijacked the planes and knocked down the towers? That's just naive.

[Logan13]

There are ways to identify the origin of the bomb after it has blown up. After all the nuclear weapon states are excluded it would be obvious its Iran.

you would be clammering for diplomacy in such a situation, even after the fact.

[rafael]

I hope that the "proof" doesn't find itself into your apartment. So the 9/11 hijackers were good, until they hijacked the planes and knocked down the towers? That's just naive.

sorry but your use of scare tactics will not change my mind. and stop using 9 11 to prove some point of yours..i live in new york ..do you?

[Logan13]

sorry but your use of scare tactics will not change my mind. and stop using 9 11 to prove some point of yours..i live in new york ..do you?

I could not present anything more "scary" than airplanes flying into buildings in your city. I will use what I like to make a point...........sorry if it hurts your "feelings".

[rafael]

my feelings? lol ow boy lol..this has nothing to do with my feelings mate. were just arguing. we each have our own opinion and i really dont see each of us changing the others...so lets agree to disagree.

[Logan13]

i like to think that everyone is good untill proven otherwise. untill iran attacks anyone...theyre just doing the best for themselves. and i dont think anyone has a right to say what they can and cant do

BTW, Iran is arming shiite Iraqi's so that they can fight the sunni Iraqi's. How is this not seen as an attack by you? Or is an attack only something that the US is judged by?

[Logan13]

my feelings? lol ow boy lol..this has nothing to do with my feelings mate. were just arguing. we each have our own opinion and i really dont see each of us changing the others...so lets agree to disagree.

I just had a sense that you were a real touchy-feely theoretical guy.........what do you do for a living, are you in the arts?

[Kärnfysikern]

you would be clammering for diplomacy in such a situation, even after the fact.

Obviously not.
If that was true I would be opposed to the war in afghanistan aswell? But I am not.

[rafael]

I just had a sense that you were a real touchy-feely theoretical guy.........what do you do for a living, are you in the arts?

im a IT ( linux server admin / development) its all good mate i actually enjoy arguing about points with others..it helps me understand other point of views..even if my own are opposed.. i never try to bring my feelings into an argument..its futile to do so imo. its like groucho marx said.. "i wouldnt be a member to any club that would have me"

[Logan13]

im a IT ( linux server admin / development) its all good mate

10-4, were you born in NY? The whole "mate" thing makes me think either british or Australian?

[rafael]

no i was not born in new york..i was born in hamburg germany. i came to the states in 1991. i picked up the word mate from my aussie counterparts:P

[SVTMuscle*]

How can a country NOT have a nuclear bomb? America has had them since the 1940's, are they really that far behind us?

[Kärnfysikern]

How can a country NOT have a nuclear bomb? America has had them since the 1940's, are they really that far behind us?

NPT and IAEA is the reason.

Any country that has an nuclear power industry can easily build a bomb if they choose to. Sweden, Finland, Japan, Canda, Germany and a number of other countries could probably have a bomb within 2 years if needed.

So its mostly a matter of chooise not incompetence. Both France and Finland is ahead of the states when it comes to nuclear technology in general.

[ecivon]

BTW, Iran is arming shiite Iraqi's so that they can fight the sunni Iraqi's. How is this not seen as an attack by you? Or is an attack only something that the US is judged by?

This is BS ... Intelligence assessment has categorically stated that Iran is not supplying arms into Iraq. They have found Iranian arms but they contend they were supplied by underground factions. A damned far-cry from being supplied by a government.

The fact that Iranian arms are in Iraq is no different than finding US, Israeli, Swedish, German, or Russian arms, which are all in Iraq and used by both sides.

How naive.

[juicedOUTbrain]

BTW, Iran is arming shiite Iraqi's so that they can fight the sunni Iraqi's. How is this not seen as an attack by you? Or is an attack only something that the US is judged by?

Even if what you said was true, there is signifigant evidence that saudi arabia is funding the sunni insurgency. Remember, most of the insurgency is sunni, ex-baathists, saddam loyalists, people fighting for more say in the gov't, etc...

19 of the 20 hijackers were saudi, lets goto War!!!...you people are so quick to jump to military action when you put no thought into the effects of such an attack...

Your talking about attacking a country, that like Iraq, has never once attacked the United States...and you want to bomb them...

gotta love imperialism...

[Logan13]

This is BS ... Intelligence assessment has categorically stated that Iran is not supplying arms into Iraq. They have found Iranian arms but they contend they were supplied by underground factions. A damned far-cry from being supplied by a government.

The fact that Iranian arms are in Iraq is no different than finding US, Israeli, Swedish, German, or Russian arms, which are all in Iraq and used by both sides.

How naive.

Sight a source, not your opinion. If you can not, just quit whining.

[Logan13]

Even if what you said was true, there is signifigant evidence that saudi arabia is funding the sunni insurgency. Remember, most of the insurgency is sunni, ex-baathists, saddam loyalists, people fighting for more say in the gov't, etc...

19 of the 20 hijackers were saudi, lets goto War!!!...you people are so quick to jump to military action when you put no thought into the effects of such an attack...

Your talking about attacking a country, that like Iraq, has never once attacked the United States...and you want to bomb them...

gotta love imperialism...

As we have discussed. There are sunni sources and shiite sources funding and supplying this war. This has even less to do with US forces now and more to do with the future control of Iraq.

[Logan13]

19 of the 20 hijackers were saudi, lets goto War!!!...you people are so quick to jump to military action when you put no thought into the effects of such an attack... What would have had us do, talk about it?

Your talking about attacking a country, that like Iraq, has never once attacked the United States...and you want to bomb them...

Than you are against the war in Afghanistan as well for the same reason than........?

[ecivon]

Sight a source, not your opinion. If you can not, just quit whining.

It is all over the news and in the media. It isn't personal opinion but opinion of the intelligence community. But you have a nasty habit of cherry picking and threading/posting out of context.

[ecivon]

Than you are against the war in Afghanistan as well for the same reason than........?

So what is the lame point and connection here?? How is there a parallel between Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran? Iraq and Iran have had absolutley no connection to 9/11, going into Afghanistan, or the 'war on terrorism'. Get a clue ... give you the trigger and you'll pull it regardless of who it is pointed at.

[mcpeepants]

Than you are against the war in Afghanistan as well for the same reason than........?

I was against the Afghan war

[ecivon]

I was against the Afghan war

Like most everyone I got caught up in the 'Patriotism' in the aftermath of 9/11 and felt the US would be justified going to all corners looking for the people responsible, including going into Afghanistan. Until it came out that prior to the US beginning the campaign the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden to the US and the Bush administration refused. Why the **** was that? What was behind that lame decision -- reasons to go into Afghanistan other than bin Laden??