Iran Aims for 50,000 Centrifuges at Nuclear Plant (Update3)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Iran Aims for 50,000 Centrifuges at Nuclear Plant (Update3)

By Ladane Nasseri and Marc Wolfensberger

April 10 (Bloomberg) -- Iran said it is aiming to install 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium as part of its nuclear program, a day after defying the United Nations with an announcement that the work has reached an industrial scale.

Iran's aim is not only ``to install 3,000 centrifuges at its Natanz nuclear facility but is has planned for 50,000 centrifuges,'' the head of the country's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday that Iran has begun enriching uranium on an industrial scale.

About 1,500 centrifuges spinning non-stop for a year would be needed to produce the 28 kilograms (62 pounds) of 90 percent- enriched uranium needed for a bomb, nuclear physicist David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington said in June.

Ahmadinejad's announcement yesterday didn't include details of how much uranium Iran has enriched.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Fan****ing tastic.

 

[Kandahar]

Fan****ing tastic.

Yep, Bush really screwed the pooch by putting our military in a situation where we're powerless to stop them, or even make a credible threat.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Yep, Bush really screwed the pooch by putting our military in a situation where we're powerless to stop them, or even make a credible threat.

Why do you think our military is in no position to stop them? Our military is still in a postion to absolutely demolish all of Iran's capability for war and production. We would simply be unable to pacify the country afterwards.

 

[Kandahar]

Why do you think our military is in no position to stop them? Our military is still in a postion to absolutely demolish all of Iran's capability for war and production. We would simply be unable to pacify the country afterwards.

While technically this is true, we would face disastrous consequences as a result of this. Therefore, we aren't realistically in a position to stop them, and Iran knows this.

Six months ago, I was arguing in FAVOR of a military attack on Iran under the condition that we withdraw from Iraq first. But since then, we've had an election and a Baker-Hamilton report and it is clear that Bush has no intention of ever withdrawing from Iraq. So we can't do much about Iran.

 

[oldreliable67]

Thoughts from the Washington Times on the subject:

One wonders where today's Churchill might be, whose accession to the American presidency would prefigure successful American opposition to Iran's horrifying nuclear plans.
[...]
And for those who argue that diplomacy is the path to safety in stopping the Iranian bomb -- a glance at the news these last few weeks might suggest that it is Iran, not the West, that is better playing that ancient art. It was the British -- historically masters of diplomacy -- who were humiliated by the Iranians over the Royal Navy and Marines hostage incident. In its aftermath the Dubai Kaleej Times, the Pakistan Daily Times and other Muslim news outlets proclaimed messages similar to that of the Saudi Arabia Arab News: "This is a triumph for the Iranians." While Western media reports of our diplomatic meanderings encourage Westerners to believe we are being oh so civilized, prudent and un-cowboy-like as we gently and diplomatically nudge Iranian intentions away from their lust for nuclear weapons, large segments of the Muslim world are cheering on every radical Muslim triumph over a "decadent" Christian West that is proving itself ripe for the pickings, and for historic civilizational revenge.

 

[Kandahar]

While I agree that Iran has generally played realpolitik much better than the US or UK, the recent hostage crisis was hardly a triumph for them. In fact, it was a miserable failure. The UK got everything they wanted and Iran got nothing. I don't see how anyone could ask for a better outcome. If this was a victory for Iran, what possible outcome would NOT have been a victory for Iran?

 

[oldreliable67]

Iran got nothing

Oh? You disagree with these Arab publications (link provided above)?

the Dubai Kaleej Times, the Pakistan Daily Times and other Muslim news outlets proclaimed messages similar to that of the Saudi Arabia Arab News: "This is a triumph for the Iranians."

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. But who is in a better position to know? Do you really feel you know better than they?

As one commentator put it:

Iran pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and subsequent release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the utter futility of all those transnational institutions -- most prominently the European Union and the U.N. -- that pretend to maintain international order.

You would think maintaining international order means, at a minimum, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.

 

[Kandahar]

Oh? You disagree with these Arab publications (link provided above)?



Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. But who is in a better position to know? Do you really feel you know better than they?

Sure. Why would the Arabs and Pakistanis know? Especially since their media is essentially pure government propaganda. For some reason (I have no idea why), their governments have decided it's better to paint this as a victory for Iran than for the West. The actual facts don't really matter to them. I wouldn't trust anything coming out of their media.

As one commentator put it:

Charles Krauthammer has been so thoroughly wrong on nearly everything related to foreign policy, that I fail to understand why any newspapers continue to syndicate him, and why anyone still takes him seriously. Sadly, there's no accountability in punditry.

 

[oldreliable67]

Sure. Why would the Arabs and Pakistanis know? Especially since their media is essentially pure government propaganda. For some reason (I have no idea why), their governments have decided it's better to paint this as a victory for Iran than for the West. The actual facts don't really matter to them. I wouldn't trust anything coming out of their media.

Ah, so now you're an expert on ME media? Interesting.

Charles Krauthammer has been so thoroughly wrong on nearly everything related to foreign policy, that I fail to understand why any newspapers continue to syndicate him, and why anyone still takes him seriously. Sadly, there's no accountability in punditry.

Oh, thats right, I forgot. When we disagree, we attack the messenger.

Krauthammer got a Pulitzer because no one takes him seriously? How many have you received?

 

[Kandahar]

Ah, so now you're an expert on ME media? Interesting.

No need to get hostile.

Do you deny that there are almost no independent media outlets in the Muslim world? Freedom of the press is...lacking...to say the least. These media outlets aren't giving their opinions of what happened in Iran, they're just saying what their governments tell them to say.

Oh, thats right, I forgot. When we disagree, we attack the messenger.

Krauthammer got a Pulitzer because no one takes him seriously? How many have you received?

Umm...If you're citing an op-ed piece by Krauthammer, it's perfectly justifiable for me to question his track record of getting things right. Just reread some of his columns leading up to the Iraq war to see what I'm talking about.

Suppose that there was a respected pundit who opined that the world was coming to an end in six months. Don't you think that people would be justified in pointing out that he had said similar things every year for the past 20 years, and had been consistently wrong? Or would that be "attacking the messenger"?

 

[RightOfCenter]

While technically this is true, we would face disastrous consequences as a result of this. Therefore, we aren't realistically in a position to stop them, and Iran knows this.

Disastrous consequences such as what? Oil prices will go up, but I would rather pay a hell of a lot more for gas than have a nuclear armed Iran seated at the world table.

 

[Hatuey]

Disastrous consequences such as what? Oil prices will go up, but I would rather pay a hell of a lot more for gas than have a nuclear armed Iran seated at the world table.

Yeah I kinda agree with you on this one. We'd have a bad problem if Iran had nuclear weapons of any sort. I'm praying so that Armageddon doesn't start within the next 30 years. These guys have been hoping for this **** for like the last 300. They really wont hesitate to bring us to with with 1 min from midnight.

 

[Kandahar]

Disastrous consequences such as what? Oil prices will go up, but I would rather pay a hell of a lot more for gas than have a nuclear armed Iran seated at the world table.

As would I, but that is hardly the only consequence we would face. For one thing, Iraq would go up in flames overnight (which is all the more reason to withdraw NOW), which would draw in the Saudis. Our international reputation would be even lower than before (and don't even try to tell me that isn't important).

Also, Iran has shown that it has terror cells capable of striking as far away as Argentina. While that problem would dissipate shortly after the invasion, it could pose a serious threat just before and during the invasion. Hezbollah would almost certainly draw Israel into another war with Lebanon and/or Syria, which could draw in other Arab countries.

And then there's the fact that our military is stretched to the breaking point as it is. People are already on their fourth or fifth tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was a time when Bush had the opportunity to implement the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton Commission and/or begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Unfortunately, he chose to dig in instead. He put all our chips on the table on a hand that we couldn't win. There is simply no way that the American people (or the Bush Administration) are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to win a war with Iran.

So yes, we could theoretically eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities if we were willing to wage total war, and have the federal government consume over 60% of our GDP, as was the case in WWII. But realistically, an attack on Iran would be highly unlikely, and the Iranians know this.

 

[Gardener]

. The UK got everything they wanted and Iran got nothing.

They wanted their soldiers paraded about and humiliated?


You are making at least two assumptions here, one being that the only thing the U.K. might have wanted was the return of their soldiers, and the second being that the only way to evaluate this situation is to look at it from a point AFTER they had been kidnapped.

If you were dealt five cards with a jack high and folded before you lost more than your ante, it may be said that you made the best of a bad situation, but that's a far cry from getting everything you wanted. THis course of action would be especially unwise when the dealer is dealing from the bottom of the deck to ensure you are receiving nothing but bad hands and you continue to lose your antes in each hand rather than confront the dealer.

 

[oldreliable67]

Do you deny that there are almost no independent media outlets in the Muslim world? Freedom of the press is...lacking...to say the least. These media outlets aren't giving their opinions of what happened in Iran, they're just saying what their governments tell them to say.

Did you check the independence of the media outlets listed?

Umm...If you're citing an op-ed piece by Krauthammer, it's perfectly justifiable for me to question his track record of getting things right. Just reread some of his columns leading up to the Iraq war to see what I'm talking about.

I have and I see no problem with them. You have your opinion, I have mine, Krauthammer has his. He has a Pulitzer and numerous awards for his commentary. Neither you nor I can say the same.

Suppose that there was a respected pundit who opined that the world was coming to an end in six months. Don't you think that people would be justified in pointing out that he had said similar things every year for the past 20 years, and had been consistently wrong? Or would that be "attacking the messenger"?

Analogy via extrapolation to the absurd?