| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| IISS and CIA: No Iran Nukes for 10 Years. Trust Us. |
| 2006-01-13 |
| Iran has alarmed the international community by removing the seals at its nuclear fuel research sites - but experts say it is several years away from being capable of producing a nuclear bomb. There are two routes to producing an atomic weapon: using either highly enriched uranium, or separated plutonium, and Iran could pursue either or both routes. Regarding uranium, Iran has already embarked on the first step of the purification process necessary to ultimately produce weapons-grade material. It has produced reconstituted uranium - what is known as "yellow cake" - at its uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. However, the influential London-based think tank The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said in a report in September that this was contaminated and was not currently useable. Supposing Iran solves this problem, it then needs to embark on the process of enriching the uranium. For uranium to work in a nuclear reactor, it needs only a small amount of enrichment. Weapons-grade uranium must be highly enriched. Gas centrifuges are one way of enriching uranium. Iran already has 164 centrifuge machines installed at its pilot centrifuge plant at Natanz, but that is only a fifth of the total it needs before it is fully operational. The commercial-scale facility could ultimately house as many as 50,000 centrifuges, according to some estimates. Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the IISS, says Iran has another 1,000 centrifuges dating to before it temporarily suspended enrichment in 2003. But these have not been tested to ensure they still work. Tehran might possibly have parts for a further 1,000 centrifuges, Mr Fitzpatrick told the BBC News website. Frank Barnaby, consultant for the UK security think tank the Oxford Research Group, agrees that Iran does not yet have a critical number of centrifuges in place. "They don't currently have enough centrifuges working - so far as we know - to produce significant amounts of highly-enriched uranium or even enriched uranium. They would need a lot more," he told the BBC News website. Even if the plant is made fully operational, it is currently configured to produce low enriched uranium (LEU) rather than the weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU). So given these limitations, the IISS believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon. Dr Barnaby agrees. "The CIA says 10 years to a bomb using highly enriched uranium and that is a reasonable and realistic figure in my opinion," he said. Iran could alternatively use plutonium to produce nuclear weapons, but this route is also problematic for Tehran, analysts say. Plutonium can be produced as a by-product of fission carried out by Iran's Russian-built nuclear power reactor at Bushehr. The IISS says Iran would need to build a reprocessing plant suited to the fuel used in Bushehr and this would be very technically challenging. But according to Dr Barnaby, useful reprocessing could be carried out over a short period using a suitably equipped chemical laboratory. Iran is also constructing a heavy-water research reactor at Arak, which Dr Barnaby says would "very efficiently produce plutonium of the sort that is good for nuclear weapons." But this will not be ready until at least 2014, and probably later, the IISS has said. "And anyway, the Iranians are a primitive, childlike people who only care about peace, so they would never do anything as unfriendly as build a bomb." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #13 The important point is not when they get operational nukes, but when they get Russian air defence systems. |
| Posted by: Omeang Grailet5065 2006-01-13 23:53 |
| #12 With the technology available at that time and after all the research done the Manhattan Project took 3 years to make a bomb. 10 years in the 21st C seems ludicrous |
| Posted by: Ulotle Wholuse7269 2006-01-13 18:12 |
| #11 WEBEDEADWRONG |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-01-13 17:20 |
| #10 PHeww! 10 years? I was almost worried there. Another slam dunk! On to Healthcare.... |
| Posted by: Danking70 2006-01-13 17:20 |
| #9 This is about the same as tracking a terrorist cell but waiting until they blast through a cockpit door before arresting them. Saddam's WMDs may be fantasy or they may be buried somewhere, but I'm relieved that we've put him out of business. And Saddam seems like a reasonable man compared to that nutjob president of Iran. Don't risk my civilization on ASSumptions about what Iran has and doesn't have. They've already made plenty of statements tantamount to declarations of war, and they've made it clear that they have plans to do some serious underground work. They're not looking for carrots down there, doc. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-01-13 16:24 |
| #8 Hmm. Iran already has 164 centrifuge machines installed at its pilot centrifuge plant at Natanz, but that is only a fifth of the total it needs before it is fully operational. The commercial-scale facility could ultimately house as many as 50,000 centrifuges, according to some estimates. That's one. Iran could alternatively use plutonium to produce nuclear weapons, but this route is also problematic for Tehran, analysts say. Plutonium can be produced as a by-product of fission carried out by Iran's Russian-built nuclear power reactor at Bushehr. That makes two. Iran is also constructing a heavy-water research reactor at Arak, which Dr Barnaby says would "very efficiently produce plutonium of the sort that is good for nuclear weapons." But this will not be ready until at least 2014, and probably later, the IISS has said. That's three. Three choke points to target. Not bad. Thank you, IISS! |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-01-13 14:54 |
| #7 oops..my apologies Beoseker. I think I misread what you meant in your post and confused you with another poster. Sheesh...you think I'd learn. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-13 13:38 |
| #6 IF the IAEA, the biggest pussweeds in the world, think Iran is "months away from a bomb" we should be worried. They have stymied this process for a long time, now they want to move in and shut them down. |
| Posted by: Sneretch Gleang2265 2006-01-13 13:17 |
| #5 The CIA, like Besoeker, has failed so miserably in their ability to analyse the obvious (such as the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of the Islamists) that when they speak, no one listens. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-13 13:06 |
| #4 #2 I'm sure its yet another CIA 'Slam dunk'..... Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-01-13 12:24 Psssssst...."Show them the IRAQ WMD trailer slides Mr. Secretary, show them the WMD trailer slides.....Yes, George. Yes, George." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-13 12:45 |
| #3 Based on this report, I predict Iran will test their first nuke before the 4th of July, 2006. The only open question is whether that test will be over a city, a group of US ships in the Persian Gulf, or underground like everyone else. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-01-13 12:43 |
| #2 I'm sure its yet another CIA 'Slam dunk'..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-01-13 12:24 |
| #1 Taking into consideration the CIA's track record and current attitudes, I think it's clear that Iran would have nukes within 6 months. I think the CIA's time has come. Bring back the OSS under WWII rules. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2006-01-13 12:08 |