• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IAEA Report: Iran has two bombs worth of enriched uranium

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
IAEA report:



While certainly this does not mean that Iran is "days" away from obtaining a weapon, in the past the IAEA has been seemingly slow to acknowledge that this is a growing danger.

Ultimately, something is going to have to be done about a potential Iranian nuclear state.

Enriched at what percentage? I think they only have a few kilograms enriched to 19% (which is necessary for doing researches, and is perfectly legal). They can't enrich it to more than 20% yet, and if you wanted to make a nuclear bomb you would need several hundreds of kilograms enriched to something like 90%.

I am not convinced they would use such a weapon, however the spread of fissile material and increasing proliferation within the Middle East is not something we can tolerate.

That's why Israel should sign the NPT and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its military bases
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Enriched at what percentage? I think they only have a few kilograms enriched to 19% (which is necessary for doing researches, and is perfectly legal). They can't enrich it to more than 20% yet, and if you wanted to make a nuclear bomb you would need several hundreds of kilograms enriched to something like 90%.



That's why Israel should sign the NPT and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its military bases



Israel good. Iran bad.

Get with the program.

Israel won't use nukes except as an extreme last resort if its survival is threatened. Israeli nukes are, in that sense, actually a stabilizing presence in the M.E.

If you believe what Iran's president has said over and over, Iran might use nukes on Israel or the USA for the purpose of causing a general conflagration to "Bring on the 12th Mahdi" (Muslim apocalyptic figure), even if it means the destruction of Iran.

Yes, I know you discount that as mere rhetoric, mistranslation, etc etc.

Well I sure hope you're right, because it looks like we're going to dick around until Iran actually has nuke-tipped ballistic missles. Heh, you think the Mideast is unstable now? Just wait.

As for me... when a man tells me he's going to kill me and my whole family and burn down my house, then he starts loading his pistol... I'm going to assume he means business and act accordingly. I'm not going to wait until he puts the gun to my head to find out if he will actually pull the trigger. (I don't think Israel is going to wait much longer either.)
 
Last edited:

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Enriched at what percentage? I think they only have a few kilograms enriched to 19% (which is necessary for doing researches, and is perfectly legal). They can't enrich it to more than 20% yet, and if you wanted to make a nuclear bomb you would need several hundreds of kilograms enriched to something like 90%.

You are correct to state that it is not enriched yet to 90%, however stockpiling enriched uranium at 20% more than cuts in half the time Iran needs to actually produce a warhead. Also, you claim that their enrichment is "perfectly legal" under the NPT, which is techically true, however it ignores the subsequent orders from the UNSC for Iran to halt its enrichment program.

Iran is therefore in clear violation of legally binding UNSC resolutions, and therefore in clear violation of the law with their enrichment programm.

That's why Israel should sign the NPT and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its military bases

I hardly think you can argue with a straight face that the Middle East is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons due to Israeli weapons. Israel is widely belived to have had these weapons for years, and most of the Middle East has made no effort to obtain nuclear weapons beccause of that fact.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You are correct to state that it is not enriched yet to 90%

Do you know the percentage of enrichment of the Iranian uranium?

however stockpiling enriched uranium at 20% more than cuts in half the time Iran needs to actually produce a warhead.

Not at all. While it's fairly easy to slightly enrich uranium at the early stages, it gets more and more difficult when you reach 20 or 30%.

Also, you claim that their enrichment is "perfectly legal" under the NPT, which is techically true, however it ignores the subsequent orders from the UNSC for Iran to halt its enrichment program.

There is no reason for Iran to stop the enrichment since they don't breach any NPT rule.


I hardly think you can argue with a straight face that the Middle East is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons due to Israeli weapons. Israel is widely belived to have had these weapons for years, and most of the Middle East has made no effort to obtain nuclear weapons beccause of that fact.


There's something I don't understand: you complain because Iran would have breached a NPT rule by keeping on enrichying uranium (which is really debatable) but you find it normal that Israel does not even sign the same treaty?? That's a huge double standard.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Israel good. Iran bad.

Get with the program.

Israel won't use nukes except as an extreme last resort if its survival is threatened. Israeli nukes are, in that sense, actually a stabilizing presence in the M.E.

If you believe what Iran's president has said over and over, Iran might use nukes on Israel or the USA for the purpose of causing a general conflagration to "Bring on the 12th Mahdi" (Muslim apocalyptic figure), even if it means the destruction of Iran.

Yes, I know you discount that as mere rhetoric, mistranslation, etc etc.

Well I sure hope you're right, because it looks like we're going to dick around until Iran actually has nuke-tipped ballistic missles. Heh, you think the Mideast is unstable now? Just wait.

As for me... when a man tells me he's going to kill me and my whole family and burn down my house, then he starts loading his pistol... I'm going to assume he means business and act accordingly. I'm not going to wait until he puts the gun to my head to find out if he will actually pull the trigger. (I don't think Israel is going to wait much longer either.)

My reasoning is very simple and logical. You just have to agree with some premises:

- Iranians are rational
- rational people do not use nukes (that is called the MAD theory)

As several Israeli officials have said, the real concern for Israel is not that they could get nuked, it's that they will lose their local hegemony.

I think that this would be a good step towards peace since they'll actually be forced to end the colonization of West-Bank and East Jerusalem, agree on the creation of a Palestinian state and end the siege of Gaza.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you know the percentage of enrichment of the Iranian uranium?

Well, most of the IAEA report remain in the dark, but I have seen estimates from anywhre between 3% and 20%. Back in February Iran claimed it was at 20% (I forget how much of it though). So in reality, all we really know is between 3-20% I suppose.

Not at all. While it's fairly easy to slightly enrich uranium at the early stages, it gets more and more difficult when you reach 20 or 30%.

True, it would not be without hurdles, but stockpiling at 20% dramactially reduces their time frame (barring no large problems).

There is no reason for Iran to stop the enrichment since they don't breach any NPT rule.

Iran is in violation on the UNSC, not the NPT at this point. UNSCR 1696, "Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA." (Text here)

Since UNSCR are supposed to be legally binding, violation of one is a violation of accepted international law.

There's something I don't understand: you complain because Iran would have breached a NPT rule by keeping on enrichying uranium (which is really debatable) but you find it normal that Israel does not even sign the same treaty?? That's a huge double standard.

I did not cite the NPT as evidence of Iranian wrongdoing, I cited a legally binding Security Council Resolution. To my knowledge, there have been no such resolutions demanding Israel end its nuclear program.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My reasoning is very simple and logical. You just have to agree with some premises:

- Iranians are rational
- rational people do not use nukes (that is called the MAD theory)

There is a bit more to the MAD theory than what you cite here, but running with your statement that "rational people do not use nukes," was the United States acting irrationally in WWII?

As several Israeli officials have said, the real concern for Israel is not that they could get nuked, it's that they will lose their local hegemony.

I think that this would be a good step towards peace since they'll actually be forced to end the colonization of West-Bank and East Jerusalem, agree on the creation of a Palestinian state and end the siege of Gaza.

Why would a nuclear Iran force the issue between Israel and the Palestinians? I would arge that Iran, and basically every other state in the Middle East as well, really does not care about the Palestinians at all.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,523
Reaction score
34,321
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My reasoning is very simple and logical. You just have to agree with some premises:

- Iranians are rational
- rational people do not use nukes (that is called the MAD theory)

AH. i have identified two problems:

1. As the recent elections and subsequent isues should have shown, the Iranian people are not in charge
2. Rational people DO use nukes if they are absolutely convinced that it will be in their best interest to do so. the US ended WWII, and Iran's leadership appears to be convinced it will usher in the 12th Mahdi and Allah will protect them from counterstrike. You know how the Russians are upset at the US development of a missile protective shield? This is because it turns MAD on it's head; the US would be able to strike with a level of assuredness of protection from the M in MAD. Well, the Iranian leadership seems to think either A) God will provide that function for them or B) they will instantly be promoted, as martyrs, into the heros of paradise. remember, Iran belongs to a culture in which rational people strap bombs to their chests.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
There is a bit more to the MAD theory than what you cite here, but running with your statement that "rational people do not use nukes," was the United States acting irrationally in WWII?

You need two actors with nukes for the MAD theory. In 1945 only the USA had nukes.


Why would a nuclear Iran force the issue between Israel and the Palestinians? I would arge that Iran, and basically every other state in the Middle East as well, really does not care about the Palestinians at all.

Israel will have to calm down and won't be able to do whatever it wants anymore. I had read that on foreignpolicy.com but I can't find the article anymore.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,523
Reaction score
34,321
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why would a nuclear Iran force the issue between Israel and the Palestinians? I would arge that Iran, and basically every other state in the Middle East as well, really does not care about the Palestinians at all.

exactly. a far more likely scenario is that Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and others would all launch their own nuclear programs.
 

Alvin T. Grey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
839
Reaction score
203
Location
Dublin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rational and bomb strapping are mutually exclusive ideas.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My reasoning is very simple and logical. You just have to agree with some premises:

- Iranians are rational
.

There is quite a bit of evidence that this is not the case.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Israel won't use nukes except as an extreme last resort if its survival is threatened. Israeli nukes are, in that sense, actually a stabilizing presence in the M.E.

That is nonsense. Israel having nukes is all the more reason for other countries with regional ambitions like Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Honestly, I think Iran will develop nuclear weapons regardless of whether Israel has them because they also have global ambitions and that means being on equal footing with the nuclear powers.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,523
Reaction score
34,321
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is quite a bit of evidence that this is not the case.

I hearby nominate Goshin for the understatement of the year award.
 
Top Bottom