A great article by Australia's unofficial energy/environment national treasure, Dave Kimble.

The author is self-contradicting. He claims that the announcement means that the US KNOWS (his emphasis) that Iran is not planning to make a bomb, and yet this announcement states that Iran has 80Kg of 20% enriched uranium.

There is no discernible reason for Iran to enrich uranium to that level except to make bombs. Power station uranium only needs to be enriched to 3-4%,

As a result I find his suggestion that the US knows that Iran is NOT developing a bomb to be unconvincing, to say the least.

How about the publicly stated reason - for fuel rods for a research reactor for producing medical isotopes ?

This stuff in the hands of radicles is not a good idea. An election coming up and half the opposition is in jail. We know the result.
With what they have 80 kg; they could cause drastic problems for millions.
Radiation from Japan has been found 600 km's away.

This is a poorly argued position. One has to wonder what the author's personal agenda might be.

He quotes the Director as saying:

"Iran nevertheless is expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities, which can be used for either civil or weapons purposes."

This would appear to be a fairly straightforward statement. The processes that the Iranians are presently undertaking can, according to the Director, be used to make weapons.

But in a breathtaking leap of logic, Mr Kimble ploughs on with:

>>As you can see, they "do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons". This implies that Iran is not doing so now.<<

It does no such thing.

OK, so they probably haven't built any yet. But how does that prove that there is no intention to do so?

Despite the lack of any substance in his material, we still get the pompous assertion that:

>>...the US knows Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program<<

Absolute nonsense.

There is nothing, not a scrap of evidence anywhere in the article that even remotely suggests that Iran does not have a "nuclear weapons program". And everything to suggest that they do, indeed, have one under way.

And while I'm here...

The subheading to this article is "The official US line on the Iranian WMD threat and sanctions"

Just out of interest, what makes this particular individual report to a Senate Committee the "official US line"?

Back to the real world.

--Iran, a relatively poor country, has expended enormous resources on giving itself the capability to make nuclear weapons.

--It has also devoted considerable efforts to developing a nuclear-capable delivery system *.

--It is specious to compare mullah-ruled Iran to Japan – blind Freddy can see that the differences go deeper than US likes and dislikes.

Only a fool would conclude that taking the final decision is anything more than a mere formality. Nothing is certain in life but the odds are overwhelming that once Iran has the capability it will take the final step.

Then we have the problem that if Iran goes nuclear so will Saudi Arabia** giving us two nuclear armed Muslim theocracies and that's not counting Pakistan.

I think it reasonable to infer that if Iran, Turkey's Shia neighbour, goes nuclear Turkey itself will start thinking along similar lines.

A nuclear Iran could, most likely will, trigger a nuclear arms race in one of the most unstable regions in the world.

Destroying Iran's nuclear facilities is not a good option. The fallout (pun intended) will be unpleasant.

But it may be the least worst option.

And maybe the least worst option is the best we can do.

Palloy

The idea that Iran would go to all this effort to produce medical isotopes that can be bought much more cheaply on world markets is a bit far fetched - and that's putting it kindly.

*IRAN TESTING MISSILES THAT COULD CARRY NUCLEAR WEAPON, UK'S HAGUE SAYS

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-29/world/iran.missiles.tests_1_nuclear-program-nuclear-activities-peaceful-nuclear-technology?_s=PM:WORLD

**HOW IRAN NUCLEAR STANDOFF LOOKS FROM SAUDI ARABIA: MUSTAFA ALANI

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/how-iran-nuclear-standoff-looks-from-saudi-arabia-mustafa-alani.html

What a pointless point. As if any anti west outfit would divulge to us what they're really up to ? How old are those who believe that crap ? ten, twelve ?

Dave Kimble parts the curtain of excrement.... and the whiff of fresh air is almost excruciating.

That's tough on those who like their propaganda served up hot.

stevenlmeyer
> "The idea that Iran would go to all this effort to produce medical isotopes that can be bought much more cheaply on world markets is a bit far fetched - and that's putting it kindly."

The research reactor was originally supplied by the US and went operational in 1967. It used highly enriched uranium. After the 1979 revolution the US cut off supplies of nuclear fuel. In 1988 Iran signed an agreement with Argentina to modify the reactor and supply 19.5% enriched uranium fuel rods for the reactor. This was completed in 1993.

Since then everyone has refused to supply any more fuel rods to Iran, so your assertion that they can just buy it is wrong.

In 2010 Turkey and Brazil brokered an agreement whereby Iran would give low enriched uranium and receive 19.5% enriched uranium, to obviate the need for Iran itself to enrich to 19.5%. The US refused this proposal, so the Iranians went ahead and did the enrichment themselves.

It is quite possible that the upcoming talks with the P5+1 will see the proposal be put again, and the P5+1 would be well-advised to accept it this time.

While the same enrichment technology can be used to enrich to the 90% level needed for bomb-making, in practice the associated plumbing would need to be changed. And with on-going IAEA inspections and cameras monitoring the whole time, this would be impossible. It would also take a long time to produce the required amount - measured in years. So as long as Iran remains within the IAEA, there is no danger at all of them producing a bomb, and if they were to leave IAEA, that would invite immediate attack.

Palloy wrote:

>>your assertion that they can just buy it [medical isotopes] is wrong.>>

Medical isotopes, as opposed to fuel rods for a reactor, are available. The Iranians could indeed just buy them. In fact if they canned their nuclear program they could afford them by the truckload.

I repeat, the notion that the Iranians would go to such enormous expense simply to manufacture in a reactor the medical isotopes they could buy much more cheaply on world markets is preposterous. I don't see how any sane person could believe such a fairy tale.

Incidentally making medical isotopes in a reactor may well be an obsolete technology.

See:

New finding may solve isotopes shortage

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/20/new-finding-may-solve-isotopes-shortage/

Why then does Australia run a reactor at Lucas Heights to produce medical isotopes ? Answer: because medical isotopes have a very short half-life (measured in hours or days) and therefore high radioactivity per unit of mass, to minimise the poisonous dose of these materials. They therefore lose their radioactive potency very quickly and can't be transported internationally. There is no "world market" in medical isotopes.

And why does Australia do research into uranium enrichment ? To be able to make a nuclear bomb if it has to - the very thing the Iranians are accused of. And what would Australia say if we were accused of "keeping ourselves in a position to make that decision" ? You can't prove to anyone's satisfaction that you won't do something in the future.

Palloy

The ostensible reason the Howard government gave for building a new reactor at Lucas Heights was to provide medical isotopes.

No one who understood the real position believed Howard. I certainly did not.

So why did the Howard government build a new reactor at Lucas Heights?

Obviously John Howard did not confide in me and I cannot read minds.

However had I been John Howard I would have done the same thing and I would probably have given the same (phoney) reason.

And here's why.

Australia is a small country in what looks likely to become a tough neighbourhood. Just to the north of us is Indonesia, a Muslim country with a rapidly growing economy and ten times our population. In fact in terms of purchasing power parity the Indonesian economy has already overtaken us though in per capita terms it is much smaller.

Nonetheless size matters and in coming decades it is increasingly going to be Indonesia, NOT Australia, that calls the shots in our region.

Under these circumstances I would want an ace in the hole, an equaliser. Just in case.

The equaliser is, of course nukes. What I would want is to be in a position where my lead time for developing nuclear weapons was no more than a single decade.

How do I do this? How do I put myself in this position?

I need to keep in being a corps of scientists and engineers who understand nuclear technology. Part of doing that is to give them a reactor to play with.

If, as a by product, I can get medical isotopes well and good.

But I no more believed Howard's official line that I believe Ahmadinejad's or Khameini's on this issue. What is more I don’t know anyone familiar with the position regarding medical isotopes who does.

Of course if Iran were to put its test reactor under international control it would be able to get fuel rods and it could probably sell the isotopes at a profit.

But that would negate the whole purpose of having the reactor.