If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2 months
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran in
two months DEBKAfile: An Iranian official postulates first US military action against Iran in two months January 31, 2007, 11:59 AM (GMT+02:00) The first commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohsein Rezai, estimated in recent conversations with Western sources that the US would not start out with a large-scale attack but only pinpointed military raids against RG bases in Iran. The opposition Mujaheddin al Khalq are reportedly being trained to take part in these operations, which would probably escalate as Iran began retaliating to the American strikes. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2 months
"AirRaid Mach 2.5" wrote in message oups.com... Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran in two months Isn't it interesting how this stuff just "comes up" around election time in Iran.... * PLONK * |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2 months
"Mike Dennis" wrote in message ... "AirRaid Mach 2.5" wrote in message oups.com... Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran in two months Isn't it interesting how this stuff just "comes up" around election time in Iran.... * PLONK * yeah, bush's saber rattling has no effect on his comments. every day the whitehouse makes new accusations. of course they have "proof" that they can't share for security reasons. and the whitehouse wouldn't lie now would it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2 months
"AirRaid Mach 2.5" wrote in
oups.com: Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran in two months DEBKAfile: An Iranian official postulates first US military action against Iran in two months The question is when though. It could be 0400Z Thursday. Or 1700Z three weeks from last Tuesday. The Iranians won't know until it happens at which point it all becomes moot. IBM |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2 months
On Jan 31, 7:20 pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Mike Dennis" wrote in message ... "AirRaid Mach 2.5" wrote in message roups.com... Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran in two months Isn't it interesting how this stuff just "comes up" around election time in Iran.... * PLONK * yeah, bush's saber rattling has no effect on his comments. every day the whitehouse makes new accusations. of course they have "proof" that they can't share for security reasons. and the whitehouse wouldn't lie now would it. What proof are you talking about? I have heard no accusation of proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons. I've seen estimates that they could get from where they are now with their nuclear programs to a deliverable weapon in a pretty short period of time, but I've seen nobody claim to have evidence that they are activly working on it. However, there are clear facts that... 1. Iran's leadership would like to annhilate Israel. This is not speculation. Various Iranian leaders, including the current President, have said it many times, and re-confirm it whenever they are asked. 2. Iran is building nuclear mining, processing, enrichment, and reactor facilities. Again, Iran makes no denial that this is taking place. They claim that it is for peaceful power generation purposes, not for creating weapons. Now, anybody who wants to can look into what is required to prepare uranium for a nuclear power plant, and see that many of the things that Iran is doing with their uranium (again, fully in the open), is not necessary unless you are making weapons. I also like their repeated states of "Even if we WERE making nuclear weapons, we have a right to do that if we want to. Israel, India, Pakestan, and others have them, what gives anyone the right to say we can't have them as well". 3. Iran is building, and testing, long range ballistic delivery systems. They have announced the capabilities of these systems to the worrld and put out a press release each time they conduct a test. No secret stuff here either. So without the benefit of ANY sensiitive intel, you have clear pointers to a potential threat. An analagy. -A guy tells you seriously, that he wants to kill one of your neighbors. -The next day you see him entering a gun shop. Sure, maybe he went in there to get change, or maybe he just wants an air pistol for shooting crows. Maybe they refused to sell him a gun, or maybe he just bought a gun with no ammo so he could be threatening, but maybe he actually plans to follow through with what he said he wanted to do. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2
On Feb 1, 3:35 pm, (John Dallman) wrote:
In article .com, (Airyx) wrote: Now, anybody who wants to can look into what is required to prepare uranium for a nuclear power plant, and see that many of the things that Iran is doing with their uranium (again, fully in the open), is not necessary unless you are making weapons. Can you be specific about these activities? You /do/ need to enrich uranium for a pressurised-water reactor: it won't go critical with natural uranium. You can make a reactor that will run on natural uranium with either high-purity graphite or heavy water as moderators, but they aren't that good for power generation. All the USA's commercial nuclear power plants, and most of the rest of the not-ex-Soviet-Union world's ones are PWRs, because that's easier to build and run and quite effective. This is why the sharp division between civilian and military nuclear technology that people try to draw is illusory. To run civilian power plants in a cost-effective manner you need to make large quantities of low-enriched uranium. If you can do that, you also have the technology to make highly enriched uranium. Since this point is somewhat technical and politically inconvenient, media reporting on the subject tends to be unreliable. That's part of the rub, isn't it. Many of the things you need to do to produce fuel for a nuclear power plant are also things that you would need to do to create nuclear weapons. There is, however, a differenciation point in a couple of areas. It is my understanding that there is a diminishing economic return once you enrich uranium past a certain point. Anything beyond that is spending more money on the enrichment process than you can expect to get in return for power. IAEA inspectors have been shown enrichment processes that go far beyond this point. In addition, Iran has been processing plutonium, even though none of their reactors are designed for plutonium. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2
In article ,
(Peter Skelton) wrote: (John Dallman) wrote: ... and most of the rest of the not-ex-Soviet-Union world's ones are PWRs, because that's easier to build and run They use CANDU technology, a heavy water reactor. Unfortunately a by-product is plutonium. This has been an embarassment in the past. Yes, yes, I said "most of", and then simplified for a summary. I know about CANDU, at least in outline. As I understand it, Canada uses CANDU at least partly because they built a lot of heavy water manufacturing plant during WWII, and then had nothing much to do with the stuff. The CANDU has various attractive features, but they have not tempted any other country to build the requisite heavy water facilities. -- John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian official expects first U.S. military action against Iran within 2
In article om,
(Airyx) wrote: Since this point is somewhat technical and politically inconvenient, media reporting on the subject tends to be unreliable. That's part of the rub, isn't it. Many of the things you need to do to produce fuel for a nuclear power plant are also things that you would need to do to create nuclear weapons. There is, however, a differenciation point in a couple of areas. It is my understanding that there is a diminishing economic return once you enrich uranium past a certain point. Anything beyond that is spending more money on the enrichment process than you can expect to get in return for power. Oh, absolutely. The only people who use HEU in reactors are navies, where physically small reactors and infrequent refuellings are very worthwhile. IAEA inspectors have been shown enrichment processes that go far beyond this point. "That go past this point" or "That /can/ go past this point"? That's the kind of point that the media can mess up really easily. Everything I've read has said that they're concentrating on centrifuges. This is the most practical technology for any kind of uranium enrichment at present. Now, the enrichment on a single centrifuge stage is tiny, not remotely enough for reactor usage. You have to run centrifuges in a long cascade to get any worthwhile enrichment. So, if you have an industrial-scale centrifuge plant, you can run it in several parallel cascades to get a large quantity of low-enriched uranium, suitable for running PWRs, or you can run it in fewer, longer cascades and get less HEU, suitable for bombs. But it's the same plant, and the changes needed to reconfigure it are tiny compared to the effort of building it. So anyone with a big centrifuge plant can make HEU if they want to. The biggest centrifuge plant in Europe belongs, not to the UK to France, but to the Netherlands, who thus have a considerable latent nuclear weapons capability. Unfortunately for politics, uranium enrichment via centrifuges isn't proof of nuclear weapons intent. In addition, Iran has been processing plutonium, even though none of their reactors are designed for plutonium. There is also, sadly, a legitimate civilian use for reprocessing capability. At the point when reactor fuel is running out of reactivity, that isn't because most of the U235 in it has been burned up. It's because the various fission products in the fuel are absorbing significant numbers of neutrons. If you take the fuel out of the reactor, and chemically separate the plutonium and uranium from the other stuff, you end up with uranium that's less enriched than it was, but is still significantly above natural U235 levels, and is thus cheaper to enrich back to reactor-grade. Now, the USA does not do this, having decided decades ago that the downsides of reprocessing - plutonium, high-level nuclear waste - meant that the game was not worth the candle. The only large-scale reprocessing the USA has ever done has been for making military plutonium, on fuel from reactors designed for making plutonium, rather than power generation. However, several other states (UK, France, Japan) do, or have, undertaken large scale-reprocessing or civilian nuclear fuel, because it's much more economical of limited uranium supplies. So if a country is wanting to build up a full-scale nuclear fuel cycle capability, experimenting with small-scale reprocessing to see just how hard it is - you always learn more from doing it yourself than from reading about it - is legitimate. The USA's decision that it is not worth doing is a piece of industrial policy that several other countries don't agree with. It absolutely isn't a rule in the NPT. And the idea that Iran wanting civilian nuclear power is obviously and only a cover, because they have lots of oil, doesn't stand up either. Yes, they have lots of oil, and it's substantially the only thing they have. They presumably know approximately how much they have, since they must surely have surveyed anywhere remotely geologically promising by now. But when their oil runs out (more accurately, starts getting economically unattractive to extract) they don't want to return to poverty. They've ben very poor within recent history, and they don't want to go back. That's entirely reasonable. There may be more oil to be discovered elsewhere - but it's elsewhere, and they won't get to benefit from exporting it. So they want to create other industries, so they'll have other things to export. Since they have a somewhat more advanced educational system than most countries in the region - still, even after years of the Islamic state (Shias don't have the hostility to all things modern that extremist Suni so often suffer from) - they're trying to build high technology stuff. And there seems to be a significant chance that nuclear technology will make a comeback for electricity power generation, since fossil fuels have massive advantages for mobile uses, and less so for fixed plant. They don't need it for power generation now, so offers of Russian enrichment and reprocessing aren't very interesting. Besides, would you trust the Russians to keep up your energy supplies? Europe is learning, rapidly, that Russia regards turning off the tap as a basic price- negotiating tactic, about like this ("We think we should end our current contract and have a new one where you pay twice as much", "We aren't keen on this idea at all", 'Click'). And yes, the idea that this may also give Iran nuclear weapons is undoubtedly attractive to them. But it isn't the only plausible reason for a nuclear programme. If they were being even slightly cunning, they would genuinely not have a nuclear weapons programme at present, so that they couldn't be caught doing it. Building up their technology to the point that, say Japan or Germany were at in the seventies, so that they could then swiftly execute a weapons programme, would be much smarter. -- John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
12 May 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 13th 06 04:49 AM |
12 Apr 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 13th 06 03:32 AM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |