April 13, 2012 : P5+1/Iran summit, take 2.

[seth gecko]

Does the fact that the rest of the world seems to be concerned take anything away from your 'blame Israel' thesis?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2265/ir...madinejad-economic-sanctions-military-options


I guess that AIPAC is so powerful that they have warped world opinion.

My "blame Israel" thesis???
WTF are you talking about???
Groggy mentioned AIPAC in his post, and Walt is somewhat infamous as the coauthor of "The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy", which examines entities like AIPAC (and Walt got skewered over that book..............I assumed a knowledgeable dude like yourself would have understood what I meant, but it appears I was mistaken, and for that I apologize). But Walt does make some very good points in the article I linked that has nothing to do with an Israel Lobby. I generally stay out of political discussions, so if Groggy wants to address this point with you, then knock yourselves out. If you want to discuss some of the technical aspects related to this, I'll help you out with that. But you have to remain objective (which I don't think you can do, no offence intended). Trace amounts of 27% aren't that big of a deal, my friend, no matter how much you want it to be. And the IAEA finding these trace amounts reinforces that Iran can't easily hide evidence of nuclear testing.

 

[seth gecko]

Basketcase, this is for you:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-nuclear-iran-uranium-idUSBRE84O0SN20120526

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/ISIS_Analysis_IAEA_Report_25May2012.pdf

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_Report_25May2012.pdf

 

[basketcase]

I don't know why anybody would be overly concerned with trace amounts of 27% enriched uranium. ...

Yet it clearly shows a violation of the NPT.

First amounts of 20% uranium far more than needed for medical purposes and that's fine.
Now 27% is fine.

I guess 89% would be fine too.


As for evidence of a weapons program, it's not but it sure as hell is a reason for concern (at least to the sane).

 

[basketcase]

Basketcase, this is for you:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-nuclear-iran-uranium-idUSBRE84O0SN20120526

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/ISIS_Analysis_IAEA_Report_25May2012.pdf

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_Report_25May2012.pdf

Thanks. I wonder of you read them. They don't paint the rosy picture you claim.

For instance the second says that Iran is producing 19.75% fuel at 7.65 kg/month yet the TRR requires ~1.5 kg/month at max power. Considering the report says they have 145 kg of fuel (and growing), their legitimate civilian needs are already met far into the future yet the enrichment continues.

(additional details from http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/)

 

[seth gecko]

Yet it clearly shows a violation of the NPT.

First amounts of 20% uranium far more than needed for medical purposes and that's fine.
Now 27% is fine.

I guess 89% would be fine too.


As for evidence of a weapons program, it's not but it sure as hell is a reason for concern (at least to the sane).

I'm not in the habit of posting links blindly; yes I read everything. Did you read and understand what was posted? I think not..........

Friday's IAEA report also said environmental samples taken in February at Iran's Fordow facility - buried deep beneath rock and soil to protect it from air strikes - showed the presence of particles with enrichment levels of up to 27 percent.
Iran's permanent representative to the body played down the findings, saying some western media sought to turn a technical issue into a political one.
"This matter is a routine technical discussion that is currently being reviewed by experts," IRNA quoted Ali Asghar Soltanieh, as saying.
The IAEA report suggested it was possible that particles of uranium enriched to higher-than-declared levels could be the result of a technical phenomenon. Experts say that while it is embarrassing for Iran, there is no real cause for concern

Sooooo.................are the experts insane???? Because they're not concerned about trace amounts of 27% LEU. But Basketcase feels its reason to be concerned....................hmmmmmm, experts say don't worry, but Basketcase says shit your pants. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but if the experts feel there is no real cause for concern, I'm not going to argue with them. You be my guest to try to do so, as I'm not going to argue with you either (and its definitely not because you come across has having any expertise in the field).
There's no evidence of a current weapons program. As for sanity, Albert Einstein had a pretty good definition derived from along the lines of doing the same thing but expecting different results (it should be clear to all but the insane that the same efforts in dealing with Iran will provide the same results, which thus far are far less than satisfactory). There is NO actionable evidence to date, just the same old suspicions being recirculated, and repeating them doesn't make them true (sorry to burst your bubble). Until you have something new to add to, you shouldn't expect a different outcome.

 

[seth gecko]

Thanks. I wonder of you read them. They don't paint the rosy picture you claim.

For instance the second says that Iran is producing 19.75% fuel at 7.65 kg/month yet the TRR requires ~1.5 kg/month at max power. Considering the report says they have 145 kg of fuel (and growing), their legitimate civilian needs are already met far into the future yet the enrichment continues.

(additional details from http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/)

The first link pretty clearly says experts are not concerned about trace amounts of 27% LEU, which you are freaking out over. But lets skip that one (oh yeah, you "conveniently" did already).
The second link from the ISIS also says pretty much the same thing:

This development is an embarrassment for Iran but it is not a sign of Iran moving to higher enrichment levels

Its nice to see that after having it explained to you a half-dozen times, you finally understand the difference between comsumption and capacity (well, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here). The TRR can be fueled with about 115kg +/- a few kgs, but now they have more than whats required. Obviously, they will be building bombs with the 30kgs of 20% LEU, and they deliberately showed that to the IAEA (despite having the ability to whitewash the efforts of nuclear processing) so as to instill irrational fear into people.................or maybe to instill fear into irrational people. I don't know why they did it, but dammit, it proves they're making bombs, don't it (Basketcase, this was sarcasm. I'm not sure if you get that, so I wanted to be clear). If 30Kgs of LEU was unaccounted for following the IAEA inspection, THAT would be cause for immediate concern. Having a small quantity of overstock isn't. But, if you feel its sufficient reason to escalate matters, don't let me stop you.
Basketcase, I'm tired, achy, hungry and horny, and that doesn't put me in a fun mood, so rather than getting snarky with you, I'm going to stop now on this thread (but we'll pick it up later). Nice chatting with you



Oh yeah. Did you actually read and understand any of the links?? Because this is from the second link (the one you though you read and understood. remember?):

Between the two enrichment sites, Iran has produced 145.6 kilograms of 19.75 percent LEU hexafluoride. Figure 7 represents the cumulative production of 19.75 percent enriched uranium in Iran. Of that total, Iran has downblended 1. 6 kilograms of 19.75 percent LEU hexafluoride into LEU enriched to less than five percent. Iran has also sent an unknown amount of 19.75 percent LEU to the Uranium Conversion Facility at Esfahan to make into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. Between December 17, 2011 and May 15, 2012, the IAEA reported that Iran has fed into the process line at the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant at Esfahan 43 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride enriched up to 20 percent uranium-235, and it has produced 14 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 20 percent in the form of U3O8. Some has been manufactured into TRR fuel assemblies and a portion sent to the TRR. It appears that up to 43 kilograms of 19.75 percent LEU is no longer in the form of uranium hexafluoride and could be considered as not available in a breakout, at least in its initial stage. The exact amount sent to this plant, however, is not clearly specified in the IAEA report. Nonetheless, 43 kilograms is subtracted from the total amount of 19.75 percent LEU produced in table 2. In summary, about 101 kilograms of 19.75 percent LEU hexafluoride remains as of May 15.

 

[wigglee]

It is absolutely arrogant and delusional for the international community to demand Iran not develop nukes without also asking Israel to destroy theirs. Insane hypocrisy that can only be denied by shills of Zion.

 

[basketcase]

... As for sanity, Albert Einstein had a pretty good definition derived from along the lines of doing the same thing...

Your right. I among others repeatedly calling you out for burying your head in the sand would fit that criteria. I'm sure their are similar comments about the refusal to see what is in front of you.

 

[basketcase]

It is absolutely arrogant and delusional for the international community to demand Iran not develop nukes without also asking Israel to destroy theirs. Insane hypocrisy that can only be denied by shills of Zion.

A comment that would be expected from the moronic. (especially considering the pew research poll I posted)

Iran is a NPT member. Israel would have been a pre-existing nuclear state if they had signed and therefore allowed to keep them.


It's also telling that you don't care about India, Pakistan, or NK having nukes.

 

[wigglee]

A comment that would be expected from the moronic. (especially considering the pew research poll I posted)

Iran is a NPT member. Israel would have been a pre-existing nuclear state if they had signed and therefore allowed to keep them.


It's also telling that you don't care about India, Pakistan, or NK having nukes.

Nice try... lead off with an unsubstantiated personal insult, follow up with some technical mumbo jumbo which evades current reality, then throw in a few red herrings to finish ( notice only enemies of the U.S. are deemed unfit for nukes?).......I give 3 out of 10 and still stand behind the simple logic and fairness of my previous post.

 

[seth gecko]

It is absolutely arrogant and delusional for the international community to demand Iran not develop nukes without also asking Israel to destroy theirs. Insane hypocrisy that can only be denied by shills of Zion.

Rather than making comparison between Iran & Israel, a more apt comparison is between Iran and Pakistan (IMO). Pakistan, the current epicentre of int'l terrorism, extremely unstrable politically & economically, one of the fastest grwoing nuclear arsenals in the world (expected to surpass the UK any minute now!). Pakistan receives billions of dollars in US aid, most of which is either pilfered by the miliatry/political elites, or recycled to fund the Afghan war against ISAF forces. Pakistan doesn't get bullied or threatened by anyone.........Iran has taken notice over the past decade, when a few of its neighbours got invaded but Pakistan remains untouched.

 

[seth gecko]

Your right. I among others repeatedly calling you out for burying your head in the sand would fit that criteria. I'm sure their are similar comments about the refusal to see what is in front of you.

Great analysis!!! I current am pretty much surrounded by sand; there's sand in my boots, socks, pants, you name it, I'm getting sand in it. Haven't stuck my head in the sand yet & don't plan on ever doing it; I get sand in my mouth when I try to eat sometimes, and its always blowing into my eyes, ears & hair that I'm 100% certain I wouldn't want my head in it.
You should be thankful you're not here, because if trace amounts of 27% LEU that experts consider nothing to worry about sends you into such a fretful tizzy, I could only imagine the hissyfits you'd go into if you got traces of sand in your mouth. You really should be thankful you're not here (I am extremely thankful you're nowhere near me!!!!).
You might want to consider sending your comments to dudes like Meir Dagan, Tamir Pardo, Yuval Diskin, Ephraim Halevy, etc etc who also fail to see what is apparently so clearly in front of you. Or are you going to accuse these guys of having an anti-Israel bias too??
You have a nice day, try to keep the TV and radio off and take your tranquilizers, as we wouldn't want you to get worried over nothing as you seem prone to do.

 

[basketcase]

Great analysis!!! I current am pretty much surrounded by sand;...

Considering the experts you linked are concerned and you're not....


And the Israelis you listed not wanting a war is far different than being concerned about the potential of a nuclear Iran.

 

[basketcase]

Take 3 makes no progress. Not much of a surprise.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201268187582475.html