Article

2006-10-04 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US: Iran could have nuclear bomb in four years

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-10-04 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Bottom Line, the Administration is ready to pass this "problem" to the next President, while "W" continues to nest egg the Iraq problem.

Posted by smn 2006-10-04 01:54|| 2006-10-04 01:54|| Front Page Top

#2 Technically, I suppose 99.44% = "could".

Posted by gorb 2006-10-04 04:38|| 2006-10-04 04:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Let's play it safe and bomb the crap out of them tomorrow, just to be sure.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-04 05:38|| 2006-10-04 05:38|| Front Page Top

#4 So, it was - what - six months ago? that these experts said Iran was ten years away.

So in six months, they advanced six years? I don't like that math.

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-04 07:01|| 2006-10-04 07:01|| Front Page Top

#5 The Iranian ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech and walked out into the lobby where he met the United States ambassador John Bolton. They exchanged pleasantries and as they walked the Iranian said, "You know I have just one question about what I have seen in America."

Ambassador Bolton said, "Well, anything I can do to help you, I will."

The Iranian whispered, "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there is Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, and Sulu who is Chinese, but no Iranians. My son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Muslims on Star Trek."

Bolton laughed, leaned toward the Iranian ambassador and whispered back, "It's because it takes place in the future."

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-04 07:56|| 2006-10-04 07:56|| Front Page Top

#6 We'll know for sure how long it took when one is detonated the USA or Israel.

Posted by SR-71 2006-10-04 10:13|| 2006-10-04 10:13|| Front Page Top

#7 LOL Bobby.

In Iran i feel the people want a brighter future so once the mullahs go this country will be ok.

My bigger worry is Pakistan!!!!

Posted by Cheregum Crelet7867 2006-10-04 10:18|| 2006-10-04 10:18|| Front Page Top

#8 All in all just how many "unofficial" nuclear weapons programs are out there? And how many nations if they really wanted to, could get the bomb?

Posted by Cheaderhead 2006-10-04 18:49|| 2006-10-04 18:49|| Front Page Top

#9 All in all just how many "unofficial" nuclear weapons programs are out there? And how many nations if they really wanted to, could get the bomb?

The last time I actually heard anything about this there were something over 36 countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons programs "unofficially" - ie they had programs that could be quickly turned to nuclear weapons manufacture (or within a reasonable period of time).

The list of countries that could get a weapon "quickly" varies according to what you might call the definition of "quickly", but, as I recall, includes, but is not limited to,

Japan
South Korea
Germany
South Africa
Brazil
Canada
Australia
Ukraine

Essentially, any country that maintains an active nuclear reactor or nuclear reactor research program could potentially have the capability of converting such research programs to nuclear weapons programs.

From Wikipedia,

The U.S. Department of Energy initiated a program in 1978 to develop the technical means to convert research reactors from the using highly enriched uranium to the use of low enriched uranium, in support of its nonproliferation policy. [1] By that time the U.S. had supplied research reactors and highly enriched uranium to 41 countries as part of its Atoms for Peace program.

Also, from the same Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_reactor) is the comment that there are currently 283 research reactors operating.

The list possibly includes Syria (they have an advanced exchange program involving nuclear and particle physics and physicists with the west and, the last I saw, were looking at building a rather large "international" accelerator facility),

The list used to include Libya (but somebody apparently "saw the light" and it was not an air/ground burst),

I just recently posted that I seemed to recall that Japan was once thought to have been able to put together all the components for a nuclear device within 10 days.

It should also be noted that power sources used to generate medical isotopes and power sources for research beamlines, while called other things (likely for politically-correct reasons) are, or could be easily converted to be, nuclear reactors by any conventional definition - which means there's a buttload of potential reactor sources out there).

Also note - there's a process called "boosted fission", which I know very little about, which requires an active neutron source and can be used to boost uranium from natural to enriched to highly enriched to weapons grade fuel - and, according to several sources, can also lead to fissionable yields in low-grade sources.

Now, I'm no expert, and the experts can feel free to correct any of the above if I actually am wrong, but this is what I know and have read (and some of it's a shock to me as well - though it explains a helluva' lot of stuff up here at LBNL).

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2006-10-04 22:29|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2006-10-04 22:29|| Front Page Top

19:54 Fred
09:09 tu3031
23:57 Zenster
23:56 anon
23:55 .com
23:55 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:54 Zenster
23:53 .com
23:52 hutchrun
23:51 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:51 anon
23:50 .com
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:48 RD
23:46 RD
23:42 .com
23:39 modi Death from hell
23:37 anon
23:33 .com
23:31 RD
23:31 .com
23:30 .com
23:30 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:27 .com