Iran cleaning up nuclear work, satelite photos show.
- Thread starter shapeup1
- Start date
So why is Iran playing this game?And how many have died so far in this nuclear 'game'?
Shall we start with the 5 assassinated scientists?
You're going to have to do me a favour. Please highlight the part of the report that says anything about increased activity (the way you did "without enriching uranium" in that other thread where some stupid sap didn't understand the difference between capactiy and consumption, remember?)I don't know if that's a bubble burster.
I would assume that the suspected nuclear sites have been under constant satellite surveillance for years. If the report is on increased activity at that site preceding an IAEA visit, there is one obvious conclusion to draw. It is possible that the increased activity is unrelated but considering the continued suspicious nature of Iran's dealings and repeated stonewalling, it is reasonable to be concerned. Iran could easily allow full inspections if they wanted to remove suspicion.
There's nothing about increased activity, is there?
I think Paul Brannan explained it very clearly: “There’s no way to know whether or not the activity you see in a particular satellite image is cleansing or just regular work,” he said. “They build a lot of stuff. There’s a lot of activity there — always.”
Its a major military research base - theres lots of crap going on. They develop and test all sorts of munitions, explosives, fuels, etc that may require a containment chamber. They may have tested some nuclear components there, or maybe not (but probably yes, 8-ish years ago). But just because some trucks are carting around dirt, thats NOT the "smoking gun" everyone wants it to be. Big thick earthen berms are pretty good backstops at artillery ranges, and Parchin IS a test range. Having earthmoving equipment isn't all that unusual.
Every little bit of media reporting gets a bunch of people jumping around claiming it as proof of their position, whether they are diehard believers or disbelievers of an active Iran nuclear weapons program. And there's TONS of stuff that very VERY strongly points to the near-recent previous existence of that program, but there's just not enough evidence of sufficient quantity or quality of a currently active program to justify pulling the trigger at this time...............that doesn't mean that we'll be waiting until the very last possible second, or even miss that mark altogether. Its just too early to take any further steps beyond what is currently being applied.
If you have some strong, solid evidence that can't point to any other alternative than the active & current development of Iranian nukes, you might want to share them with your local authorities. If the covert means of monitoring Iranian progress have thus far failed to find anything conclusive, and based on Obama's stance on the matter (and dudes like Dagan, and Pardo, and Halevy), they haven't, then the overt efforts are also going to fall short........so either Iran isn't currently developing nukes, or they are soooo well concealed that the IAEA inspectors won't even know what sites they should be demanding to inspect. While Iran is hoping to avoid western escalation, they're not too interested in easing western suspicion. Remember, we need to apply our legal fundamentals to our actions, which means we need to prove their guilt, not that they need to prove their innocence.
We've been through this before, but here you go again:So why is Iran playing this game?
Iran is past peak oil, within a decade or less they will produce only enough for domestic consumption or not be able to export any, the use of nuclear energy will allow them to use replace some domestic fossil fuel energy use and allow them to continue exporting oil, which is a large part of their government's funding.
Building a functioning nuclear energy source is necessary for their economy to continue.
Whether they'd risk that much to build a bomb is conjecture, but as the US and the IAEA continue to say, they aren't building one right now.
It is not outright stated but it would stand to reason that it would only be worth comment if something different was going on.You're going to have to do me a favour. Please highlight the part of the report that says anything about increased activity ...
As for solid evidence, Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of refusing to allow the IAEA to gather it. It makes one wonder what they have to hide.
Yet nuclear energy only needs small amounts enriched to at most a coupe percent while Iran has enriched large amounts to 20% and are continuing further enrichment. 100's of kilograms of highly enriched uranium has no civilian justification....
Building a functioning nuclear energy source is necessary for their economy to continue.
Whether they'd risk that much to build a bomb is conjecture, but as the US and the IAEA continue to say, they aren't building one right now.
Bullshit. They are enriching uranium to the 20% level whereas power generation only requires uranium enriched to under 4% meanwhile they have been offered assistance building nuclear power reactors and they have been offered a supply of uranium for that purpose. The US and the EU stand fully ready to help and support Iran in the development of peaceful nuclear technology.the use of nuclear energy will allow them to use replace some domestic fossil fuel energy use and allow them to continue exporting oil, which is a large part of their government's funding.
Iran is clearly not interested. It wants to have the technology to build weapons.
Is that when Israel was saying that Iran is like a cancerous tumor that needs to be cut out.Israel is clearly more of a threat to attack Iran than Iran is a threat to attack Israel...
Complete nonsense. Iran has TWO proxy armies that attack Israel, that it funds, trains, and arms.Israel is clearly more of a threat to attack Iran than Iran is a threat to attack Israel... so what kind of motivation is that fact for them to disarm? Perhaps if Israel did the same, it would be workable.
I'd agree with the first sentence, that if something different was going on at Parchin it would be noteworthy. But theres little indication that anything different, or increased activities, are going on. It's a big facility with lots of stuff going on all the time & earthmovers aren't out of the norm.It is not outright stated but it would stand to reason that it would only be worth comment if something different was going on.
As for solid evidence, Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of refusing to allow the IAEA to gather it. It makes one wonder what they have to hide.
And I'll agree with sentence #2; Iran is doing a fantastic job of giving the IAEA a hard time in uncovering evidence of an active weaponization program. But they haven't been that successful in blocking other efforts in uncovering this program. Maybe the international intelligence community is staffed by slack-jawed yokels, dimwits and lollygags, or maybe Irans program is soooooo well concealed that the most sophisticated monitoring assets we have can't find it (and if so, what chance would IAEA inspectors have?). Or maybe they did abandon their program a few years back (or rather, put the program on the back burners). And maybe, just maybe, their hiding that they are actually much weaker than we believe them to be and want to conceal that. Point is, there is just no good intelligence to confirm what lots of people believe and simultaneously fear to be true - that Iran is currently building a bomb.
The international intelligence community hasn't found that "smoking gun", so unless you have other options, you'll have to get behind one of the 4 main ones I've laid out. Of the four "maybe's" I just laid out, I'd rank them 3-4-2-1 on a likelihood scale (option 3 being most likely & option 1 being the least likely). Your opinion may differ, but like I said, if you've got something concrete, you might want to share it with your local authorities (other than on TERB).
Badan mibinamet, sag
So your position is there's no proof of moving towards nuclear arms.But theres little indication that anything different, or increased activities, are going on. It's a big facility with lots of stuff going on all the time & earthmovers aren't out of the norm.
With today's current situation do you support the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons?
Israel is considering attacks on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran funds attacks on Israeli civilians. Perhaps that difference is irrelevant to you.Israel is clearly more of a threat to attack Iran than Iran is a threat to attack Israel... so what kind of motivation is that fact for them to disarm? Perhaps if Israel did the same, it would be workable.
I think the issue is that without a smoking (or irradiating) gun, the world community is hesitant to act in case the intelligence community is wrong and with Iran refusing the IAEA the access it needs, that smoking gun will always be missing until something big goes boom....Maybe the international intelligence community is staffed by slack-jawed yokels, dimwits and lollygags, or maybe Irans program is soooooo well concealed that the most sophisticated monitoring assets we have can't find it...
Iran is enriching uranium in direct violation of binding UN SC resolutions.The international intelligence community hasn't found that "smoking gun"
Iran is flouting nuclear weapons inspections in direct violation of binding UN SC resolutions.
What do you mean no smoking gun? What more do you need? They don't even deny either of those things!
IMO there's not enough evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program that is actionable beyond what is currently being applied.So your position is there's no proof of moving towards nuclear arms.
With today's current situation do you support the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons?
There is evidence that they were working actively on nukes several years ago, but nothing conclusively indicates they are following up on that work at present.
Their missile program is in shambles thanks to a few mysterious explosions, they have no stock of maraging steel or anyone currently willing to supply them. Even with a few scientists getting bumped off, they'll still retain the knowledge they've acquired - you can't put that genie back in the bottle. But they lack the capacity, at this time, to whip up a usable nuke in short order, if they made the decision to do so (which currently doesn't seem to be the option they've decided to pursue).
Further, I don't support the idea of any nation having nuclear weapons. But I am a proponent of nuclear energy as a source of power generation (electrical power, not political/military). Now, that's a pie-in-the-sky dream shared by millions of folks that'll likely never happen. But distorting information to whip-up fear won't help move anyone closer to getting on track towards a longer term solution to this problem.
I think we'd do well to maintain the current level of low-level action against Iran, but any escalation isn't presently justified. Cool the jets & work the diplomatic routes.
My 2 cents
Wow, its like you almost got it from the first sentence, then immediately went back to the standard talking points.So your position is there's no proof of moving towards nuclear arms.
With today's current situation do you support the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons?
So close to a discussion there for a moment, too bad.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one (if I'm reading you right).I think the issue is that without a smoking (or irradiating) gun, the world community is hesitant to act in case the intelligence community is wrong and with Iran refusing the IAEA the access it needs, that smoking gun will always be missing until something big goes boom.
This isn't the case where they can develop and test components in absolute secrecy; certain procedures are going to leave some obvious signs that they won't be able to easily mask. Those are going to be the "red lines" that Bibi & Barry are trying to come to agreement on. It was surveillance technology that initially pointed the IAEA to Parchin, not the other way around (in that the IAEA uncovered something at Parchin first and then pressed for access). Iran isn't required to have the IAEA inspect their military facilities; the IAEA wouldn't even have been looking at Parchin unless some signature was detected first. Any test they do will very very VERY likely be detected long before the IAEA thinks to ask about it. It's THAT surveillance thats going to uncover advancements in Iranian weaponization moreso than IAEA inspectors, and thus far, that surveillance isn't proving what everyone suspects & fears. Maybe the surveillance equipment is useless crap loaded with made-in-China components, or maybe their just not currently building nukes.
Such things are I will agree seldom rational, but why would Iran do this? They have certainly been holding their own since the end of the Iran-Iraq War without nuclear weapons, the West would have little reason to bother with them if they where not doing everything in their power to give the impression that they are working on a nuclear weapons program.maybe, just maybe, their hiding that they are actually much weaker than we believe them to be and want to conceal that.
That makes no sense at all.Wow, its like you almost got it from the first sentence, then immediately went back to the standard talking points.
So close to a discussion there for a moment, too bad.
First off, I was simply restating your position. I stated no opinion of my own, so I have no idea what you think I "almost got".
Secondly, I asked an honest straightforward question, which if you would answer, would then enable us to have a discussion.
Again, under current conditions do you support the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons? Yes or no.
