portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

imperialism & war

Bu$h Sunday Speech To 'Surprise' Announce Iran Atomic Bomb

latest word is that bush's sunday night speech will include a "surprise" announcement that iran is close to building an atomic bomb.
bush hopes that this new "threat" of iran's weapons of mass destruction will distract americans from the lies about iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

homepage: homepage: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

uh, sources...? 06.Sep.2003 21:22

meh

Ya know, sources usually make things more believable...

Would be pretty shrewd, actually 06.Sep.2003 21:24

xyzzy

It would be a pretty shewd propaganda tactic, actually.

According to an article in the September/October issue of the _Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_ (usually a reliable news source), Iran _is_ actually getting close to having both (a) missile technology capable of delivering a nuclear warhead within a radius of 1500 km, and (b) having the ability to produce weapons-grade enriched unanium.

"Pay no attention to the messes I've made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also pay no attention to how the Iraq attack is encouraging other nations to pursue nuclear deterrance. IRAN IS BUILDING WMD'S!!!"

Portland

'meh'--this isn't a new idea, at this point Bu$h & Co.'d be playing it up. 06.Sep.2003 21:54

sources

Posted 8/7/2003 9:31 AM
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-08-07-iran-nuclear_x.htm

Iran rejects reports that it is close to building nuclear bomb

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran on Thursday rejected reports that it was close to building an atomic bomb, insisting its nuclear program was locally developed merely to produce electricity.

"Allegations that Iran was working with other countries in order to attain nuclear technology are sheer lies," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

Asefi was reacting to a report in Monday's Los Angeles Times that Iran "appears to be in the late stages of developing the capacity to build a nuclear bomb."

The newspaper — citing previously secret reports, international officials, independent experts and Iranian exiles — said Iran has made use of technology and scientists from Russia, North Korea, China and Pakistan to bring it closer to building a bomb than Iraq ever was.

"Iran's nuclear technology has been developed by Iranian scientists and is just for civilian and peaceful use," Asefi was quoted as saying. He called the Times' report "irresponsible."

The United States has accused Iran of running a clandestine nuclear weapons program and wants the International Atomic Energy Agency to declare Tehran in violation of the nonproliferation treaty.

On Wednesday, Iran said it would not surrender its nuclear technology as provided for under the nonproliferation treaty. Tehran says Washington is keeping Iran from getting that technology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center 1718 M Street, NW Suite 244 Washington, DC 20036 202-466-4406 FAX 202-659-5429  npec@npec-web.org
 http://www.npec-web.org/projects/iranswu2.htm

Iran: Breaking Out Without Quite Breaking the Rules?

A Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Analysis

Most analyses of Iran's nuclear program are riveted on Iran's covert efforts and the question of when Iran might get its first bomb. While interesting, this question tends to downplay a much more important point: Iran can come within weeks of acquiring a large arsenal of weapons without breaking the rules of the NPT or IAEA and perhaps do so even sooner than when it might get its first covert bomb. If Iran's overt program all stays on schedule, Tehran, in fact, could get a large arsenal of nuclear weapons -- 50 to 75 bombs by 2006. First, it would have to operate its LWR at Busheir for 12 to 15 months. It could then chemically separate the plutonium (approximately 300 kgs of 85 percent 239 isotopic content plutonium, i.e., near weapons-grade) from the spent fuel and, then, convert it into metal. Metal conversion and the chemical separation of the plutonium from the spent fuel might take an additional 12-16 additional weeks beyond the time Iran extracts the spent fuel from the LWR. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), all of this is legal. It also is legal under the NPT for Iran to make as many implosion devices (sans fissile cores) as it might want and have them on the ready to receive metal plutonium cores. At this point, some time by or before 2006, Iran could break out of the NPT and have a large arsenal of weapons in a matter of days or weeks.

In contrast, if Iran uses its centrifuges to enrich natural uranium to weapons grade, it can only make 2 to 6 bombs a year by the middle or end of 2006. Why, then, would Iran bother with building slower bomb material-making centrifuges? First, Iran might be thinking that a bomb's a bomb, and that the more ways it has to make them, the merrier. Second, it also is easier to evade IAEA inspection accounting with the centrifuges than with the LWRs. Third, Tehran may be interested in making plutonium bombs and power and wants to protect its investment by making sure that when and if it kicks out the IAEA inspectors, it will still be able to supply its LWR with fresh fuel to produce more power and bombs.

There is, however, one other possible explanation. Fresh LWR fuel, if it is used as fresh feed for the enrichement plant, could (see below) dramatically increase the speed or number of bombs that otherwise could be produced. Of course, Iran may choose to develop covert nuclear capabilities (e.g., a heavy water reactor program) in addition. These covert programs could produce uranium and plutonium bombs more slowly without access to lightly enriched uranium reactor fuel. But the key point is that if Iran's declared program proceeds, Iran will soon have the ability to breakout not with one, but a large arsenal's worth of bombs and do so without breaking either the NPT or IAEA rules.

Rough estimates on Iran's planned centrifuge enrichment activities

Kilograms, pounds, and long tons

1 kg = 2.2. lbs
1000 kg = 2,200 lbs = a long ton

Number of kgs of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) required to make a nominal 20 kiloton-yield weapon

5 kilograms if there is no wastage and you have a high technology weapons design

20 kilograms if you have large amount of wastage and a very low-technology weapons design

Rough Number of Separative Work Units (SWUs) required for a variety of nuclear tasks

Approximate number of SWUs needed to make 1 kg of HEU = 200

Approximate number of SWUs needed to make a 20-kg HEU bomb = 4,000 SWUs


Estimated SWU performance of Iranian designed (aka. North Korean and possibly Pakistani modified aluminum) centrifuges

Reported number of Pakistani centrifuges required to make 100 kgs.
HEU/year = 3,000

Number of SWUs needed to produce 100 kgs. of HEU = 20,000 (i.e., 200 swus x 100 kgs of HEU)

SWUs/year/number of Pakistani-type centrifuges = 6.7 SWUs

Adjusted SWU performance accounting for Iranian aluminum vice steel centrifuge design = 2-4 SWUs

Estimated SWU/Iranian-designed centrifuge requirements to maintain the fueling of a two one-gigawatt Light Water Reactor (i.e., Iran's projected enrichement requirements)

Approximate annual fuel reload requirement for a 1-gigawatt LWR = 20,000 kgs of 3.5 % low enrichment uranium

Approximate SWUs needed to meet this requirement = 80,000 SWUs

SWUs needed to meet this annual requirement for two one-gigawatt LWRs = 160,000 SWUs

Approximate number of Iranian-type centrifuges needed to meet this requirement = ~ 50,000

Centrifuge and related bomb making capacity of planned Iranian centrifuge facilities

Iran has floor space for at least 50,000 centrifuges and it claims it intends to make this many machines. 50,000 centrifuges are needed to produce 160,000 SWU,-- i.e., enough to meet the annual fuel requirements for two 1,000 MWe LWR reactors.

Possible kgs of HEU/yr from 50,000 Iranian-type centrifuges = 160,000 SWU

Divided by 200 SWU per kg HEU = 800 kgs HEU or 40 bombs' worth assuming 20 kgs of HEU per bomb.

Enrichment requirements for making a large number of bombs starting with low enrichment uranium as feed for the HEU line

To give an idea of how much better one can do starting with LEU as feed consider the following: To make 20 kg of HEU (90%) starting with natural uranium takes about 20x200 = 4,000 SWU. But starting with 3.5% LEU it can take only a little over 700 SWU if you "skim the cream"--reject the tails at an assay of 2%. In other words, in terms of separative work, the 3.5% material is already most of the way to 90%. The 700 SWUs entail using about 200 Iranian -type centrifuges. This small cascade of machines would take a feed of a little over a ton of the LEU. In this way, by diverting the LEU from two LWR reload of 20 tons-for a total of 40 tons-you could produce nearly 40 bomb quantities of HEU with an input of a little over 40x700 SWU, or about 30,000 SWU, which is a lot less than the 160,000 that it takes starting with natural uranium.

note on the above 'Nonproliferation Policy Education Center'--Henry Sokolski 06.Sep.2003 22:09

sources

Henry D. Sokolski is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and teaches graduate courses on proliferation at Boston University's Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C. He is currently completing Armageddon's Shadow—a book on proliferation. From 1989 to early 1993, Mr Sokolski was a political appointee of the Bush administration and served as deputy for nonproliferation policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Prior to his appointment, Mr Sokolski worked in the secretary's Office of Net Assessment as a full-time consultant on advanced proliferation issues, served as senior military legislative aide to Sen Dan Quayle (R-Ind.), and was special assistant on nuclear energy matters to Sen Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.). Mr Sokolski also served briefly as a consultant on proliferation issues to the director of central intelligence's National Intelligence Council. Prior to public service, Mr Sokolski was a Visiting Scholar at the Heritage Foundation in 1982; a Public Affairs Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, California, in 1981; and a lecturer at the University of Chicago, Rosary College, and Loyola University. He has written on a variety of proliferation and security issues and has been published in a number of periodicals, including the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, Orbis, Washington Quarterly, International Defense Review, and the Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science.

Let's Not Do It Again
To go forward, we must admit Amy Carter was right [enforcing NPT].
 http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sokolski102402.asp

Fighting Proliferation with Intelligence
 http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/fp/b19ch16.htm

Sources... 06.Sep.2003 22:23

Winston Smith SxOxMxA@hotmail.com

Here's a story that confirms the original post from telegraph.co.uk.....For the skeptical "meh"..

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/07/wiran07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/07/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=43073

the chimp who cried wolfowitz 07.Sep.2003 00:59

we have no bananas

I'm not going to believe it even if it's true. Iran has enough oil to turn 0 or 100 nukes into pure pretext, although I'm sure Bush would be as happy to let them build and drop a couple if he actually worries about how it will affect his ratings to achieve another quamire. Sure we can invade Iran to keep the UN from getting the oil, but can Bush actually find the WMD? Hmmm...

It's Product Rollout Time... 07.Sep.2003 13:28

Stop him before he kills again

A quick review of Bush's failures. (Or, piling on the lies.)

2002 - Afghanistan bombed back to the stone age. Bin Laden still at large.
2003 - Iraq bombed back to the stone age. Saddam still at large.

Get ready for 2004. You guessed it: Iraq bombed back to the stone age. Bush still at large.


Product Rollout Time, Part Deux 07.Sep.2003 13:32

Alan Bisbort

It's Product Rollout Time
Only this time we ain't buying

by Alan Bisbort - September 4, 2003

"Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be; why, then, should we desire to be deceived?" --Bishop Joseph Butler (1692-1752)

Ah, for the innocent days of last September! You will recall it was one year ago that White House chief of staff Andrew Card said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Card was not referring to some innocuous national -- or empire-wide -- book circle presided over by Laura Bush or a pretzel-eating contest/fund-raiser hosted by the commander in chief.

No, Card was talking about the sales campaign that began last September for the war we are currently enjoying in Iraq and may soon be seeing in Iran and Syria. You will recall it was then -- with the willing participation of our nation's media, most notably Judith Miller of the New York Times -- that we began to be hammered, from all sides, about Saddam's nuclear capability, about his weapons of mass destruction, about his alleged ties to the Sept. 11 attacks, and so forth. All very ominous, all accompanied by multi-hued terror alerts.

It was, like most product rollout campaigns, predicated on exaggerations and outright lies. And since then, we've ended up with more blood on our national hands than we've had since the Vietnam War. To date, more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians and nearly 300 American soldiers have died in the conflict, more than half of those since May 1.

Much has changed since last year's product rollout. First of all, as the second anniversary of Sept. 11 looms, we're no closer to knowing the truth about that attack on American civilians as we were on Sept. 12, 2001. Oh, we pretty much know who's responsible, but our interim president and his minions have killed the investigation and ignored the pleas of next of kin, and what we've been given is 28 blank pages of information related to Saudi Arabia. So, it is not a report. It is an insult to the people who want to know why their friends and family were incinerated. Not to mention, a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

Secondly, Bush's "invincibility" has been proven false, with poll after poll indicating a majority of Americans do not want him elected in 2004 (and yet, the American media will continue to flog the lie that he's a popular wartime president).

Third, there's not much in the way of product left to roll out that will halt the gaping hole that sits in the middle of Bush White House credibility. Even former supporters are realizing that this man is, as Michael Moore put it in his Oscar acceptance speech, "a fictitious president" who sends "us to war for fictitious reasons."

So, what can we expect in this year's rollout? Something violent, for sure. Something vicious, most likely, perhaps a National Homeland Security Department-generated Internet bug that gobbles up anti-Bush sites. Something fake and big and monosyllabic. Something easy to pronounce, easy to remember, involving duct tape and plastic sheeting, or axes of evil or bringin' 'em on.

Nothing, however, can hide the largest federal budget deficit in American history, a crumbling economy, a vanishing middle class, loss of jobs, corporate corruption and environmental degradation on a scale never before seen, body bags returning from Iraq, weeping mothers, angry New York City residents wondering why they were lied to about the health-damaging air they've been breathing since 9/11, instability of Social Security, the giveaways to the rich while the rest of us scuffle to try to make ends meet, and -- the coupe de grace -- the largest spike in gas prices since cars were invented (one of the myths that was floated for the Iraq war was that we'd be swimming in cheap oil).

As a former U.S. Army intelligence officer told me, "Last year's fabricated September product was 'justification' for a pre-emptive war against Iraq. This year's fabricated September product will be that CIA man David Kay and his assistants will 'find' WMD. Well, if you want to keep a sailing ship afloat and on course, you have to keep it properly rigged."

Prepare yourself for the fall line of presidential fiction.
Prepare yourself for the fall line of presidential fiction.

Oops 07.Sep.2003 18:07

Postman

Just heard the President's speech. Not one word about nukes in Iran. The sources for this rumor apparently have about as much grasp on reality as Michael Moore does.

Postman 08.Sep.2003 12:31

Oops

read the proliferation article sources above--it's only a matter of time . . .

(or don't you truly believe in your warm fuzzy red-white & blue heart that Iran has a bomb, anyway?)