3rd Iranian Nuclear Scientist Killed

[Jimbeaux]

glazbagun said:

Jimbeaux said:

Countdown said:

ChiChoAndy said:

What I don't really understand is the revulsion folks have for Iranians having nuclear power. There is a long way between fuel sufficient for nuclear fuel, and purifying it so it is suitable for weapons. Why, exactly, do the Israelia, or Saudis don't what them to have electricity?

It's not for electricity. Its for self-defense. They've learned from what the US has done in the cases of Iraq, Pakistan, and North Korea.

What has the U.S. done to NK? Pakistan? (who has nukes BTW).

I think that's the point he was making. Have nukes and the US will leave you alone, more or less. Don't have them & the US will run through your country when the mood takes it.

That makes no sense fellows. If they have nukes, and they happen to work, they need delivery systems. As you have seen, NK can barely get a rocket past Japan before is takes to the ocean. If they have a delivery system, can it reach the U.S.....not as of yet I would wager. Suitcase nuke, not as easy as some think.
Pakistan serves a purpose, so far. NK? Why kill or get people killed when they are likely to wither on the vine, change leaders, get reeled in by the Chinese, etc? Combat is not neccessary at the moment to contain them.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 25th July 03:17

[Countdown]

ChiChoAndy said:

Countdown said:

It's not for electricity. Its for self-defense. They've learned from what the US has done in the cases of Iraq, Pakistan, and North Korea.

What suggests to you that they are doing it for self defense? They have moves facilities into bunkers, but is this because of sneak attacks from elsewhere, or for nafaripis reasons? All I can find with regards to nefarious motives is a dodgy essay that seems to crop up on paranoid websites. The IAEA haven't said anything about them going to weapons grade material.

They have shed-loads of oil. There isn't really any need for them to go nuclear for energy reasons. So why suffer the various sanctions if they didn't need to ?IIRC other countries have offered them non-weapons grade material if they agreed to stop refining their own. Pretty sure its for weapons reasons.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

It is an optional train of thought being floated by certain people in intelligence circles.

Is this info anywhere in the public domain? As I mentioned I've never seen this suggested anywhere, even on the Internet (apart from your post). There are various countries that hope the Iranians don't get nukes, the US and Israel being the two primary ones. There are various countries that have carried out extra-judicial assasinations, the US and Israel being the two primary ones.

But its always helpful to muddy the waters when one is up to mischief

[Countdown]

glazbagun said:

Jimbeaux said:

Countdown said:

ChiChoAndy said:

What I don't really understand is the revulsion folks have for Iranians having nuclear power. There is a long way between fuel sufficient for nuclear fuel, and purifying it so it is suitable for weapons. Why, exactly, do the Israelia, or Saudis don't what them to have electricity?

It's not for electricity. Its for self-defense. They've learned from what the US has done in the cases of Iraq, Pakistan, and North Korea.

What has the U.S. done to NK? Pakistan? (who has nukes BTW).

I think that's the point he was making. Have nukes and the US will leave you alone, more or less. Don't have them & the US will run through your country when the mood takes it.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

That makes no sense fellows. If they have nukes, and they happen to work, they need delivery systems. As you have seen, NK can barely get a rocket past Japan before is takes to the ocean. If they have a delivery system, can it reach the U.S.....not as of yet I would wager. Suitcase nuke, not as easy as some think.
Pakistan serves a purpose, so far. NK? Why kill or get people killed when they are likely to wither on the vine, change leaders, get reeled in by the Chinese, etc? Combat is not neccessary at the moment to contain them.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 25th July 03:17

You don't need a particularly long range delivery system if you are using it for self-defence. There are plenty of US bases and allies within reach of the NKs.

I agree with you that there isn't a "need" to invade North Korea. But there wasn't a "need" to invade Iraq either, was there?

[off_again]

In line with a few other comments - I dont think its the US or UK here. Although both governments have done dodgy things before, I doubt that either would be as crass or insensitive to carry out such actions at the moment. Talk about poking the caged animal!!!

Most likely "in region" if you ask me. Either local Iranians who dont want the government to get more power or a local neighbour government who doesnt want the Iranians to get too powerful. Syria? Israel? Saudi? I dont imagine that the emergence of Dubai / UAE being a trader / tourist centre would be helped by the nearest neighbour having nuclear missiles! Oh, and I am sure the local terrorist cells in the region dont want the power to reside with the Iranians either! Suddenly another nuclear power that can call the shots and fall out with the Iranians and it gets very complicated very quickly!

Far too complex for my brain I am afraid. I am no expert and probably never will be!

[hairykrishna]

Jimbeaux said:

That makes no sense fellows. If they have nukes, and they happen to work, they need delivery systems. As you have seen, NK can barely get a rocket past Japan before is takes to the ocean. If they have a delivery system, can it reach the U.S.....not as of yet I would wager. Suitcase nuke, not as easy as some think.
Pakistan serves a purpose, so far. NK? Why kill or get people killed when they are likely to wither on the vine, change leaders, get reeled in by the Chinese, etc? Combat is not neccessary at the moment to contain them.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 25th July 03:17

As you say 'suitcase' nukes are way out of their technological capability. '40ft shipping container nuke' more of a possibility but they'd struggle to get it through a major US port these days.

[JagLover]

ChiChoAndy said:

What I don't really understand is the revulsion folks have for Iranians having nuclear power. There is a long way between fuel sufficient for nuclear fuel, and purifying it so it is suitable for weapons. Why, exactly, do the Israelia, or Saudis don't what them to have electricity?

Given the Iranian's gas reserves, and the fact that they have concentrated on producing highly enriched uranium, it is quite clear to most that Iran wants the bomb, not a civilian nuclear power industry.

[hidetheelephants]

JagLover said:

ChiChoAndy said:

What I don't really understand is the revulsion folks have for Iranians having nuclear power. There is a long way between fuel sufficient for nuclear fuel, and purifying it so it is suitable for weapons. Why, exactly, do the Israelia, or Saudis don't what them to have electricity?

Given the Iranian's gas reserves, and the fact that they have concentrated on producing highly enriched uranium, it is quite clear to most that Iran wants the bomb, not a civilian nuclear power industry.

given their recent fuel crisis, the need for electricity generation that doesn't involve burning oil is significant and getting more so. Subsidising domestic energy prices is hurting their balance of payments, it makes economic sense to have nuclear power and export the oil for revenue.

[jeff m]

So are we guessing the actual nationality of the killer or the country that issued their passport.

[ChiChoAndy]

JagLover said:

Given the Iranian's gas reserves, and the fact that they have concentrated on producing highly enriched uranium, it is quite clear to most that Iran wants the bomb, not a civilian nuclear power industry.

Sorry, but you are going to have to provide evidence that they are trying to enrish weapons grade material. There is a HUGE leap between enriching for fuel, and enriching for weapons.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

It is an optional train of thought being floated by certain people in intelligence circles.

Is this info anywhere in the public domain? As I mentioned I've never seen this suggested anywhere, even on the Internet (apart from your post). There are various countries that hope the Iranians don't get nukes, the US and Israel being the two primary ones. There are various countries that have carried out extra-judicial assasinations, the US and Israel being the two primary ones.

But its always helpful to muddy the waters when one is up to mischief

Not sure, I will look and report back later today.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

That makes no sense fellows. If they have nukes, and they happen to work, they need delivery systems. As you have seen, NK can barely get a rocket past Japan before is takes to the ocean. If they have a delivery system, can it reach the U.S.....not as of yet I would wager. Suitcase nuke, not as easy as some think.
Pakistan serves a purpose, so far. NK? Why kill or get people killed when they are likely to wither on the vine, change leaders, get reeled in by the Chinese, etc? Combat is not neccessary at the moment to contain them.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 25th July 03:17

You don't need a particularly long range delivery system if you are using it for self-defence. There are plenty of US bases and allies within reach of the NKs.

I agree with you that there isn't a "need" to invade North Korea. But there wasn't a "need" to invade Iraq either, was there?

No, IMO.

[JagLover]

ChiChoAndy said:

Sorry, but you are going to have to provide evidence that they are trying to enrish weapons grade material. There is a HUGE leap between enriching for fuel, and enriching for weapons.

They're getting there, and enriching at a higher level than they would need for a power plant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast...

[ChiChoAndy]

JagLover said:

ChiChoAndy said:

Sorry, but you are going to have to provide evidence that they are trying to enrish weapons grade material. There is a HUGE leap between enriching for fuel, and enriching for weapons.

They're getting there, and enriching at a higher level than they would need for a power plant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast...

To use another analogy, if you are making scones, and decide to make more scones, it doesn't mean you end up with a Victoria sponge. Increasing production just gives you more of the product, it doesn't change the level of enrichment.

[davepoth]

ChiChoAndy said:

To use another analogy, if you are making scones, and decide to make more scones, it doesn't mean you end up with a Victoria sponge. Increasing production just gives you more of the product, it doesn't change the level of enrichment.

Yes, it does.

The process for enrichment is - take uranium, bung into centrifuge. Leave for a bit, take out the enriched bit, put it back into centrifuge. And repeat until your uranium is sufficiently enriched for doing whatever you want with it. The more centrifuges you have, the more often you can repeat the process, so the faster you can get to weapons grade.

Following the rule of diminishing returns it takes a lot more processing to get to the higher levels of enrichment.

[Uncle Fester]

Another possible motive is that the assassinated scientists weren't involved in weapons research.

Persistent refusal to participate may have resulted in a very public warning to his fellow scientists.

Or he was pressurised into working on their project, but was deliberately failing to make progress.

We'll never know.

[ChiChoAndy]

davepoth said:

Yes, it does.

The process for enrichment is - take uranium, bung into centrifuge. Leave for a bit, take out the enriched bit, put it back into centrifuge. And repeat until your uranium is sufficiently enriched for doing whatever you want with it. The more centrifuges you have, the more often you can repeat the process, so the faster you can get to weapons grade.

Following the rule of diminishing returns it takes a lot more processing to get to the higher levels of enrichment.

True, but that does not mean they are attempting to get to the higher percentage of enrichment. It simply means they are producing more of the 20% enriched stuff. Having more gas centrifuges does not mean they are trying to get weapons grade material. An increase in production does not equal an attempt to get weapons grade.

[Countdown]

ChiChoAndy said:

True, but that does not mean they are attempting to get to the higher percentage of enrichment. It simply means they are producing more of the 20% enriched stuff. Having more gas centrifuges does not mean they are trying to get weapons grade material. An increase in production does not equal an attempt to get weapons grade.

Other countries have offered to supply low-enriched uranium to the Iranians. If that was all they wanted then why not just buy it (thereby avoding sanctions)?

[ChiChoAndy]

Countdown said:

ChiChoAndy said:

True, but that does not mean they are attempting to get to the higher percentage of enrichment. It simply means they are producing more of the 20% enriched stuff. Having more gas centrifuges does not mean they are trying to get weapons grade material. An increase in production does not equal an attempt to get weapons grade.

Other countries have offered to supply low-enriched uranium to the Iranians. If that was all they wanted then why not just buy it (thereby avoding sanctions)?

So they aren't reliant on a other country, and they would be independent?