arbane:

Yosarian2:

Overhead:

"Stockpiling highly enriched uranium" - The highest Iran has enriched to is 19.5%, which is Low Enriched Uranium. Iran has not been enriching HEU and is constantly monitored by the IAEA so it can't do this even if it wanted to.

For a light water nuclear reactor plant, the fuel that is used is between 3% and 5% enriched uranium. You don't enrich uranium up to 20% like Iran is doing now if your goal is to generate power.

(BLAH BLAH BLAH)

So, have you written the IAEA to let them know UR DOIN IT WRONG, yet? Might be a better first move than wanting Iran saturation-bombed into loving America.

What are you talking about? The IAEA is "doing it right". That's where we are getting a lot of the information about Iran that strongly implies a military dimension to their nuclear program.

From the IAEA's most recent report:

40. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible military
dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these.37 Since 2002, the
Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear
related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a
nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.
41. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed
analysis of the information available to the Agency indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are
relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. This information, which comes from a wide
variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency's own efforts
and from information provided by Iran itself, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-9.pdf

Of course, the IAEA doesn't have total knowlege about what's going on in Iran, since the Iranians are not currently letting them inspect all their nuclear facilities. But what they do know is already pretty worrying.

Also, if you think I want to "carpet bomb Iran", you're crazy. War with Iran right now would have pretty horrible consequences. That doesn't change the fact, though, that their nuclear program pretty clearly has military goals, and that we need to keep using diplomatic means to get them to stop trying to create the capability to build nuclear weapons.

Yosarian2:
For a light water nuclear reactor plant, the fuel that is used is between 3% and 5% enriched uranium. You don't enrich uranium up to 20% like Iran is doing now if your goal is to generate power.

Correct, however as mentioned in my opening post Iran also has a research reactor. Research reactors aren't used for generating energy but rather other purposes, like producing the radioactive isotopes which are used in medicine. They require uranium enriched to a higher degree than reactors designed to generate energy - enriched to the degree that Iran is enriching it to, in fact!

It's somewhere in the middle; they are currently trying to create the capability to go nuclear in a fairly short period of time, if they ever choose to do that.

If you are going to accuse them of this, and all the rest of the stuff that follows on from this that I can't be bothered to quote, you need to back it up.

Overhead:

Yosarian2:
For a light water nuclear reactor plant, the fuel that is used is between 3% and 5% enriched uranium. You don't enrich uranium up to 20% like Iran is doing now if your goal is to generate power.

Correct, however as mentioned in my opening post Iran also has a research reactor. Research reactors aren't used for generating energy but rather other purposes, like producing the radioactive isotopes which are used in medicine. They require uranium enriched to a higher degree than reactors designed to generate energy - enriched to the degree that Iran is enriching it to, in fact!

You don't think it's significant that Iran is enriching a large amount of uranium right up to the highest point where they legally can?

If you are going to accuse them of this, and all the rest of the stuff that follows on from this that I can't be bothered to quote, you need to back it up.

Ok.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7AG0RP20111117

Last week's IAEA report, which assessed that Iran has been conducting research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability, has stoked tensions in the Middle East and raised a clamor in Western capitals for harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Amano stressed the need for Iran to engage in serious talks to clarify issues in his report and said he wanted to send a high-level mission to the country to tackle increasing concerns about the nature of its nuclear activities.

"It is clear that Iran has a case to answer," Amano told a news conference on the sidelines of the board meeting.

"We have to alert the world before nuclear proliferation actually takes place."

...

"Throughout the past three years, we have obtained additional information which gives us a fuller picture of Iran's nuclear program and increases our concerns about possible military dimensions," Amano told the board.

"The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device," he said, in his bluntest public statement so far on Iran's contested nuclear program.

That is Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, talking in 2011.

Yosarian2:
What are you talking about? The IAEA is "doing it right". That's where we are getting a lot of the information about Iran that strongly implies a military dimension to their nuclear program.

The worries you're quoting from the IAEA are pretty much all historic worries before Iran opened up its nuclear program in 2002/3 and even then seriously weak. I covered the main one, the laptop, in my OP. A large amount of the concerns raised are also ones which were rejected by the previous Director of the IAEA ElBaradei as being too insubstantial to have validity, but were re-reviewed by the new IAEA director who was appointed after heavy USA lobbying and was revealed by Wikileaks to have said that he would back US interests, specifically mentioning Iran.

The one big exception to this is Parchin military complex which the IAEA currently want to investigate (Mostly in relation to pre2002 stuff, but they have hinted there might be a current concern). Iran has already let them in twice before, but there is a building they want to look in but didn't bother to last time because they didn't think it was relevant. Access is currently being negotiated, as it is a military base rather than a nuclear site so IAEA has no authority to look there.

Of course, the IAEA doesn't have total knowlege about what's going on in Iran, since the Iranians are not currently letting them inspect all their nuclear facilities. But what they do know is already pretty worrying.

Iran is letting the IAEA inspect all active nuclear sites and all sites that are within 6 months of getting ready for operation. You're getting confused with Parchin, which is a non-nuclear facility.

Yosarian2:
You don't think it's significant that Iran is enriching a large amount of uranium right up to the highest point where they legally can?

The USA didn't think it was a concern when it gave Iran the reactor.

If you are going to accuse them of this, and all the rest of the stuff that follows on from this that I can't be bothered to quote, you need to back it up.

Because even Amano isn't accusing them of having a nuclear weapon program and just has concerns which the IAEA is engaging with Iran to address, you are accusing them of having a nuclear weapon programme?

Still need to back it up.

Overhead:

Yosarian2:
What are you talking about? The IAEA is "doing it right". That's where we are getting a lot of the information about Iran that strongly implies a military dimension to their nuclear program.

The worries you're quoting from the IAEA are pretty much all historic worries before Iran opened up its nuclear program in 2002/3 and even then seriously weak.

Again, no; the most recent thing I quoted was from 2011. Yes, the active nuclear weapons program was stopped in 2003, but the IAEA believes that parts of it have continued since then.

Again, the best explanation for Iran's activities, the one suggested by most experts, is that they stopped actually trying to build a bomb in 2003, but have continued research to give them the capability to go nuclear as quickly as possible.

Frankly, the alternate explanation, the one you suggest, just doesn't make sense. Why would Iran face all this international pressure, and risk a war, just to have a (much more expensive) means to generate electrical power? There are any number of ways it could be done more cheaply. There was even an offer to provide Iran with uranium for any number of peaceful uses, so long as it stopped enriching it itself, and it refused. Also, it's nuclear program really doesn't seem designed to generate electrical power; if you wanted to do that, you would have one or two large nuclear power plants, not a bunch of little enrichment facilities hidden throughout the country. Yes, yes, you're going to say that that's to keep them safe, but doing it that way makes it an incredibly inefficient. Basically, what they're doing makes no sense as a means to generate electric power or do medical research or whatever.

Yosarian2:
Again, no; the most recent thing I quoted was from 2011.

The report was form 2011 where Amano info dumped a load of historical information dating back years.

Yes, the active nuclear weapons program was stopped in 2003, but the IAEA believes that parts of it have continued since then.

No it doesn't. You're doing the same thing as before, where you upgrade things, so concerns become belief or concrete evidence depending on how you feel.

Again, the best explanation for Iran's activities, the one suggested by most experts, is that they stopped actually trying to build a bomb in 2003, but have continued research to give them the capability to go nuclear as quickly as possible.

Covered this in the OP, for instance by quoting the opinion of all 16 USA intelligence agencies that this isn't the case.

Frankly, the alternate explanation, the one you suggest, just doesn't make sense. Why would Iran face all this international pressure, and risk a war, just to have a (much more expensive) means to generate electrical power? There are any number of ways it could be done more cheaply.

See point 1 in OP. Even pursuing other methods, they are struggling to meet rapidly rising energy demand. Also if it hadn't been for the revolution, Iran would now currently have up to 23 nuclear power plants constructed with aid of the USA. Apparently it isn't suspicious if they are friends of the USA, just enemies.

There was even an offer to provide Iran with uranium for any number of peaceful uses, so long as it stopped enriching it itself, and it refused.

Rightly so:

1) They have spent 60 years developing their nuclear infrastructure. They would be stupid to abandon it.

2) They would be even more stupid to outsource their energy security.

3) The NPT gives the unalienable right to use and develop nuclear energy peacefully as long as they don't develop weapons. If the only way to convince people you aren't developing nukes is to give up the advantages of the NPT, what is the benefit to them being party to the the NPT anyway?

Also, it's nuclear program really doesn't seem designed to generate electrical power; if you wanted to do that, you would have one or two large nuclear power plants, not a bunch of little enrichment facilities hidden throughout the country. Yes, yes, you're going to say that that's to keep them safe, but doing it that way makes it an incredibly inefficient. Basically, what they're doing makes no sense as a means to generate electric power or do medical research or whatever.

Iran is building its nuclear plants as quickly as it builds its oil refineries, which is to say pretty slow because it's not as developed as most Western countries and can't easily import goods due to the sanctions. Check the link to the US government's energy analysis department in the OP for some of the problems it has faced.

That said, Bushehr was completed last year and Iran is looking to triple its capacity by 2016. Darkhovin will be completed some time soonish.

Yosarian2:
Why would Iran face all this international pressure, and risk a war, just to have a (much more expensive) means to generate electrical power?

Self-sufficiency. So that they can produce enough power for their needs without being dependant on the power or the know-how of others. But, it's harder to pressure and control someone who's self-sufficient, so naturally the US dislike that.

There are any number of ways it could be done more cheaply. There was even an offer to provide Iran with uranium for any number of peaceful uses, so long as it stopped enriching it itself, and it refused.

Yes. They don't want just the uranium, they want the know-how too, so that they don't have to depend on others all the time.

Vegosiux:

Yes. They don't want just the uranium, they want the know-how too, so that they don't have to depend on others all the time.

Look, only Americans are allowed to be bootstrappy, rugged individualists, okay?

Overhead:

See point 1 in OP. Even pursuing other methods, they are struggling to meet rapidly rising energy demand.

Sure, but that's because they haven't had money to invest in improving their oil and gas wells. Because they've been spending it on stuff like this instead.

It would be nice if you were right, and perhaps it's impossible to say for sure, but it just doesn't seem very likely. What you're suggesting really doesn't make any sense. Nuclear power is honestly not very cost effective even when you already have the technology and can do it in a large-scale way; there's a reason that there's never been a nuclear plant in the United States funded by private capital, they've only been built with large govenrment loans because they're so expensive. Doing it piecemeal like that is far less efficient; they'd be far better off taking the same money and either drilling for more oil or buying it from other countries. There is no way that a nuclear program like the kind they are doing makes any economic sense as a way to generate power at all. And that's not to mention the diplomatic costs, which are huge.

On the other hand, Iran wanting nuclear capability makes perfect sense. They're deeply concerned that the US is going to at some point invade them and/or attempt regime change, and they think that if they have nuclear weapons it will deter that. They also want to be a regional power, to have more influence in the region, which has been a main goal of their foreign policy in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Palestine for years now. They want to be seen as a leader of the Islamic world. Why wouldn't they want to have nuclear weapons, considering their foreign policy goals?

Anyway, the idea that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability has been the opinion of every expert on the subject I've been able to find. And, yes, the IAEA has quite serious concerns on the matter, as you've conceded.

Why are you so much more confident then every Iran expert I have heard of that Iran is not developing nuclear power for a military reason? If the IAEA is nervous about Iran's possibly millitary uses of their nuclear program, then why aren't you? Every nation in the region is concerned about this; the wikileaks e-mails demonstrated pretty clearly that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries in the area are convinced that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Frankly, I thought that it was pretty generally understood that Iran's claim that they were developing nuclear energy for "peaceful" purposes was pretty much just a diplomatic fig leaf that wasn't fooling anyone at this point.

Also if it hadn't been for the revolution, Iran would now currently have up to 23 nuclear power plants constructed with aid of the USA. Apparently it isn't suspicious if they are friends of the USA, just enemies.

I think your anti-American bias is showing here.

The reason that everyone was fine with pre-revolutionary Iran developing nuclear power was that there wasn't any reason to think that the Shah was trying to build nuclear weapons. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty always allowed peaceful use of nuclear power, and if people actually believed that that was what Iran was up to now, then it wouldn't be an issue.

Yosarian2:

The reason that everyone was fine with pre-revolutionary Iran developing nuclear power was that there wasn't any reason to think that the Shah was trying to build nuclear weapons. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty always allowed peaceful use of nuclear power, and if people actually believed that that was what Iran was up to now, then it wouldn't be an issue.

See, that's the problem. Why should "people" act upon what they "believe" as opposed to I don't know, "facts".

I mean, usually those who "don't believe the official reports" are called "conspiracy theorists", shunned and not at all respected.

Vegosiux:

Yosarian2:

The reason that everyone was fine with pre-revolutionary Iran developing nuclear power was that there wasn't any reason to think that the Shah was trying to build nuclear weapons. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty always allowed peaceful use of nuclear power, and if people actually believed that that was what Iran was up to now, then it wouldn't be an issue.

See, that's the problem. Why should "people" act upon what they "believe" as opposed to I don't know, "facts".

I mean, usually those who "don't believe the official reports" are called "conspiracy theorists", shunned and not at all respected.

Uh...you do realize that I'm the one who keeps quoting the official reports, right? You're the one who keeps ignoring all the official reports and actual evidence in order to invent a conspiracy theory that somehow this is all a plan of evil Americans who want to start a stupid war for no reason.

All the evidence, every report, every bit of intelligence that's been released to the public, has lead to 4 conclusions:

1. Iran had an active nuclear weapons program until 2003

2. After the invasion of Iraq, Iran suspended the actual weapons program, but continued to work to build a nuclear capability.

3. Iran's nuclear program does not make any sense as a peaceful nuclear energy program; it's simply not designed in a way to make that practical.

4. Iran has and continues to try to hide parts of the nuclear program, and generally to act in a suspicious fashion.

I've seen the IAEA reports, the CIA analysis, and hear a number of nuclear experts talk on the subject, and they all come to that conclusion. If you have any evidence against any part of that, I'd be interested to hear it.

Yosarian2:

Vegosiux:

Yosarian2:

The reason that everyone was fine with pre-revolutionary Iran developing nuclear power was that there wasn't any reason to think that the Shah was trying to build nuclear weapons. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty always allowed peaceful use of nuclear power, and if people actually believed that that was what Iran was up to now, then it wouldn't be an issue.

See, that's the problem. Why should "people" act upon what they "believe" as opposed to I don't know, "facts".

I mean, usually those who "don't believe the official reports" are called "conspiracy theorists", shunned and not at all respected.

Uh...you do realize that I'm the one who keeps quoting the official reports, right? You're the one who keeps ignoring all the official reports and actual evidence in order to invent a conspiracy theory that somehow this is all a plan of evil Americans who want to start a stupid war for no reason.

All the evidence, every report, every bit of intelligence that's been released to the public, has lead to 4 conclusions:

1. Iran had an active nuclear weapons program until 2003

2. After the invasion of Iraq, Iran suspended the actual weapons program, but continued to work to build a nuclear capability.

3. Iran's nuclear program does not make any sense as a peaceful nuclear energy program; it's simply not designed in a way to make that practical.

4. Iran has and continues to try to hide parts of the nuclear program, and generally to act in a suspicious fashion.

I've seen the IAEA reports, the CIA analysis, and hear a number of nuclear experts talk on the subject, and they all come to that conclusion. If you have any evidence against any part of that, I'd be interested to hear it.

1) Of course, not disputing that. EDIT: Actually, I misread. I am not disputing that it had a "nuclear program". See point 2.

2) Iran didn't have the nuclear capability to work on a nuclear weapon program back then, if I remember correctly. So there wasn't much to be suspended.

3) [citation needed]

4) You know, I always find it funny how people can claim they "know" someone is hiding something. I mean, if you "know", it couldn't have been hidden. But fine, what was hidden in the past, what is hidden now? Official sources only please.

You do realize that an IAEA report or a CIA analysis on USA or France would inevitably have to conclude "Possesses capabilities to develop nuclear weapons in the future", right?

Vegosiux:

1) Of course, not disputing that. EDIT: Actually, I misread. I am not disputing that it had a "nuclear program". See point 2.

You did see that even Overhead has admitted that Iran apparently had an actual weapon program before 2003, right?

2) Iran didn't have the nuclear capability to work on a nuclear weapon program back then, if I remember correctly. So there wasn't much to be suspended.

In 2003,they were going full speed towards designing a nuclear weapon. Granted they didn't have the Uranium enrichment production yet to actually build a nuclear bomb, but they were working on bomb programs and bomb designs at the same time as they were working on uranium enrichment. They suspended the bomb programs (or at least some of them), but continued the enrichment.

3) [citation needed]

I've already explained several times now why the Iranian program, as it is today, can't plausibly be a peaceful program with the aim of creating nuclear power; it just makes no sense.

4) You know, I always find it funny how people can claim they "know" someone is hiding something. I mean, if you "know", it couldn't have been hidden. But fine, what was hidden in the past, what is hidden now? Official sources only please.

Overhead already pointed this out; the best known example is the Fordow nuclear facility, which was hidden under a mountain and kept top secret by the Iranian government; they only revealed it's existence after US intelligence found it. Yes, they then opened it up to nuclear inspectors, but only after it was discovered by US intelligence. The only obvious motivation for having a secret enrichment facility is the ability to produce highly enriched uranium without the IAEA inspectors knowing about it, in order to build nuclear weapons.

It's also worth mentioning that Iran has apparently crossed that 20% line Overhead was talking about; they are now producing medium-enriched uranium at that Quom site. That's really the hard line between a peaceful program and a weapons program.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16470100

You do realize that an IAEA report or a CIA analysis on USA or France would inevitably have to conclude "Possesses capabilities to develop nuclear weapons in the future", right?

I guess you didn't actually read that IAEA report I linked to, huh? It wasn't just about the capacity, it was about actual weapons research and militarization.

1 and 2) Oh, yeah, they wanted to develop nuclear weapons, that's true. But what they had wasn't really a "program" but more an "idea" because you actually need technology they didn't have to even start a "program". I suppose what I'm trying to say here is, that they never actually got too far down that road, because they couldn't.

3) The problem there is that "they are trying to develop nuclear weapons" isn't a conclusion, but an assumption. You know, "Here's the conclusion I want, now I need to pick some facts to support it". I'll stick with [citation needed] for now, but may look up some stuff myself.

4) That link says "up to 20%" not "over 20%". And that the facility is under full surveillance and containment.

And do I want Iran to get nukes? No, I don't, Pakistan having them is quite enough to cause problems. I just don't like this "Let's bomb them because they may be making one" thing people have going on.

The question I have is, why would Iran want WMD? Why?

Grandcrusader:
The question I have is, why would Iran want WMD? Why?

Everyone wants them, so they can deter other countries from threatening them by saying *fuck off, I have a nuke*.

Yosarian2:
Sure, but that's because they haven't had money to invest in improving their oil and gas wells. Because they've been spending it on stuff like this instead.

If you read the OP and followed the links, you'd see they are doing this as well.

Nuclear power is honestly not very cost effective even when you already have the technology and can do it in a large-scale way;

It is more expensive per MW, but has various advantages. It is also not so expensive that it isn't widely used by other countries who people don't suspect of it (Like France) and before Iran was a USA enemy it was considered fine that they wanted to focus on nuclear power, because its apparently only suspicious if you don't play nice with the USA.

there's a reason that there's never been a nuclear plant in the United States funded by private capital,

Because Capital is shit and completely useless at large infrastructure projects, but that's another matter and I wouldn't want to disappoint Stagnant.

they'd be far better off taking the same money and either drilling for more oil or buying it from other countries.

They are. Their entire economy is basically focused on energy so they are doing all they can to produce oil and gas as those are mainstays of their economy.

There is no way that a nuclear program like the kind they are doing makes any economic sense as a way to generate power at all. And that's not to mention the diplomatic costs, which are huge.

It makes a lot of sense. Within 70-100 years based on current rates of energy consumption their entire supply of oil and gas will basically be used up.

On the other hand, Iran wanting nuclear capability makes perfect sense. They're deeply concerned that the US is going to at some point invade them and/or attempt regime change, and they think that if they have nuclear weapons it will deter that.

Not every country concerned about US invasion is going to start building nukes, otherwise pretty much half the world would have nuke development programmes. Also building a nuke would GET them invaded, seeing as it would be nigh-on impossible to conceal it and Israel and the US would be certain to attack.

They also want to be a regional power, to have more influence in the region, which has been a main goal of their foreign policy in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Palestine for years now. They want to be seen as a leader of the Islamic world. Why wouldn't they want to have nuclear weapons, considering their foreign policy goals?

Oh, well obviously it makes sense to build nuclear bombs for political influence. Consider my mind changed.

Anyway, the idea that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability has been the opinion of every expert on the subject I've been able to find.

Care to quote some of them, like I did in my OP? I think you'll find that any reputable expert will actually say at the very most that they're enhancing their nuclear infrastructure (or words to that effect), which means they're increasing their centrifuge cascades and the like. As this is something you have to do to focus on nuclear energy as a domestic energy source because otherwise you don't have uranium to put in your reactors. It is not indicative of a nuclear programme.

And, yes, the IAEA has quite serious concerns on the matter, as you've conceded.

You mean as I mentioned in my OP and then brought up again when you tried to make up that the IAEA had said stuff it hadn't?

Why are you so much more confident then every Iran expert I have heard of that Iran is not developing nuclear power for a military reason?

WHICH experts. I'm not going to shadowbox the idea of an expert, bring them out.

If the IAEA is nervous about Iran's possibly millitary uses of their nuclear program, then why aren't you?

IAEA aren't nervous about possible military dimensions, stop putting words in their mouth. Also because it is a worry that can easily be solved by the AP, which itself can be easily implemented if the West agrees to stop being assholes. See my OP.

Got to go to work so I'm skipping the end of your post, but it is basically more of the same.

Yosarian2:
Uh...you do realize that I'm the one who keeps quoting the official reports, right? You're the one who keeps ignoring all the official reports and actual evidence in order to invent a conspiracy theory that somehow this is all a plan of evil Americans who want to start a stupid war for no reason.

Just got into work and have a minute before I have to get started.

Just wanted to say ahahahaha.... but no.

You've quoted the report once and that once you misunderstood what it was saying. Everytime you've then brought up what the IAEA has said you've lied and put words in their mouth they have never said.

I thought there were more points to cover, but aside from Yossarian reitterating points he made to me that I then countered, I think the two thing I didn't cover are:

The reason that everyone was fine with pre-revolutionary Iran developing nuclear power was that there wasn't any reason to think that the Shah was trying to build nuclear weapons. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty always allowed peaceful use of nuclear power, and if people actually believed that that was what Iran was up to now, then it wouldn't be an issue.

One of your ideas is that Iran doesn't need nuclear energy and it doesn't make sense economically for it to have it, so it is indicative of nuclear weaponisation. Yet when the very same country wants nuclear energy but is friendly with the USA to the extent it will help them create the reactors, that apparently isn't uneconomical or indicative or anything.

There is a clear disparity in your view.

I think your anti-American bias is showing here.

That is a clear set of backs backed up by US records. It's not bias, it's what happened.

Also I am pretty anti-USA due to their Imperialism, etc. However I'm also quite Anti-Iranian due to their lack of democracy and awful human rights. The thing is, I don't want to see a load of innocent people get blown up over a nuclear weaponisation programme that doesn't exist.

Kendarik:

arbane:

Yosarian2:

For a light water nuclear reactor plant, the fuel that is used is between 3% and 5% enriched uranium. You don't enrich uranium up to 20% like Iran is doing now if your goal is to generate power.

(BLAH BLAH BLAH)

So, have you written the IAEA to let them know UR DOIN IT WRONG, yet? Might be a better first move than wanting Iran saturation-bombed into loving America.

They aren't doing anything wrong. The IAEA reported the highly enriched uranium. They also reported that no work was being done right now on weaponizing it, which is probably true. However, Iran is still making fuel whoes only purpose is to make weapons. Even for medical use we don't need it that high.

Minor point: It's still LEU, not HEU. HEU is 20%+ and they are only going it to 19.5, which is rounded up to 20%.

Also whoever mentioned medium enriched uranium earlier is making up terms.

Excellent piece, I'll admit I didn't read it all fully, but the snippets I did were well argued.

I quite liked this bit:

Overhead:

Iran has no objection to sticking to the Additional Protocols, it followed them from 2003 to 2005 on a voluntary basis pending actually signing them into force. However it ended up not signing them into force and stopping its voluntary concessions because despite its compliance it was still being threatened by other countries and it was still being treated disingenuously by being referred to the UN security council even though it had been fully implementing the higher protocols without any breach in compliance.

So basically the whole issue with Iran would have disappeared 7 years ago if some countries (I'm guessing the USA, UK and Israel) hadn't been absolute dicks and just been professional? Nice to know that we might get stuck in a war because our governments only want friendly governments to be nuclear capable.

It's illogical that Iran would absorb crippling sanctions and risk war with America and Israel just to attain a civilian nuclear program.

My two cents.

Kendarik:
You are right of course. However, every nuclear expert I've heard has suggested that once you get it to 19.5%, its nothing to get it to 20%. They are staying clear of 20 so they can claim innocence, and yet are higher than needed, either because they want to be ready for 20 or they are just being dicks and trying to piss people off with no real plans to make nukes (which is ENTIRELY possible for Iran, they love to troll)

Yes, they could get it to 20%. Hell, if they wanted to get it to 80% when it is actually weapons grade, they could do that (20%+ is HEU but you need 80%+ to make a stable nuke).

However research reactors need either HEU or the upper end of LEU, so they're not enriching to 19.5% just to troll people. Diplomatically speaking, it makes way more sense for them to stick to LEU simply so conspiracy theorists can't bring enrichment of HEU into the equation except through disingenuous means.

The question is why would they NOT want nukes? getting them might be annoying but once they have em it's all win for em from that point on. If i were Iran i'd get nukes.

So Overhead's skills now not only encompass defending Maoism, he's also skilled at mind-reading Iranian leadership. So communists really DO have superpowers, huh.

generals3:
The question is why would they NOT want nukes? getting them might be annoying but once they have em it's all win for em from that point on. If i were Iran i'd get nukes.

Why would they not want nukes? Primarily because there's two majorly powerful countries (namely the US and Israel) that would have no problem with turning the whole country into a parking lot if they do get nukes. And really, I can understand their position. Israel is surrounded by countries that have made their intentions quite clear historically, and the US has a great deal of interest in not allowing a country controlled by an Islamic theocracy to gain even more power in the area. Now, if it were me, I'd target the bloody Saudis first, but that's just me.

TheBelgianGuy:
So Overhead's skills now not only encompass defending Maoism, he's also skilled at mind-reading Iranian leadership. So communists really DO have superpowers, huh.

Pretty big mistake you there where you confused me having mind-reading powers with me deciding to base my decision on the unanimous verdict of every single intelligence agency in the world. Maybe you need reading specs.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:
Even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons: why is it any business of the United States to do anything? Apart from them being a posturing, empire-in-all-but-name? Let me consult my maps and-... oh yes... so I thought, Iran and the USA are on different continents. Could someone like the EU perhaps lecture Iran, because at least it would be somewhat less hypocritical - the US being the only country to have ever deployed nuclear weapons against civilians.

I believe the late, great, Christopher Hitchens can answer your question about if Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.....

arbane:

Vegosiux:
And do I want Iran to get nukes? No, I don't, Pakistan having them is quite enough to cause problems. I just don't like this "Let's bomb them because they may be making one" thing people have going on.

Pre-emptive self defense! Because it worked SO FUCKING WELL in Iraq! Cheney Doctrine! We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud!

*Looks at Israel's history* you realize that pre-emptive strikes can work, right?

Ravinoff:

generals3:
The question is why would they NOT want nukes? getting them might be annoying but once they have em it's all win for em from that point on. If i were Iran i'd get nukes.

Why would they not want nukes? Primarily because there's two majorly powerful countries (namely the US and Israel) that would have no problem with turning the whole country into a parking lot if they do get nukes. And really, I can understand their position. Israel is surrounded by countries that have made their intentions quite clear historically, and the US has a great deal of interest in not allowing a country controlled by an Islamic theocracy to gain even more power in the area. Now, if it were me, I'd target the bloody Saudis first, but that's just me.

Except, not having nukes is not a defense either, Iraq had no wmd's, but they got invaded anyway, North Korea has wmd's, North Korea is not being invaded, therefore, one might think that having a nuke is better for security than not having one.
Also, are you saying that USA and/or Israel would decide to use Nuclear weapons first?

now, i am not saying that thinking nuclear weapons would make them safer is accurate, but i can see how one might get that idea.

Helmholtz Watson:

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:
Even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons: why is it any business of the United States to do anything? Apart from them being a posturing, empire-in-all-but-name? Let me consult my maps and-... oh yes... so I thought, Iran and the USA are on different continents. Could someone like the EU perhaps lecture Iran, because at least it would be somewhat less hypocritical - the US being the only country to have ever deployed nuclear weapons against civilians.

I believe the late, great, Christopher Hitchens can answer your question about if Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.....

Hitchens has a good point, but ignores the point of the questioner i think.
Does the USA have the right to decide who can or cannot have nuclear weapons?
And does USA have any credibility on the issue of human rights considering how inconsistent they are about it (well, they are kind of consistent, us good, them bad, but not in a way that lends gravitas to any of their statements).

nyysjan:

Hitchens has a good point, but ignores the point of the questioner i think.
Does the USA have the right to decide who can or cannot have nuclear weapons?
And does USA have any credibility on the issue of human rights considering how inconsistent they are about it (well, they are kind of consistent, us good, them bad, but not in a way that lends gravitas to any of their statements).

While the US may not have the best history in terms of human rights, I think in regards to the use of nuclear weapons they are pretty spot on. As the video also pointed out at 3:02, Iran has has said that they don't want them and if they do get them then they will have violated the international agreements that they have made with the world.

I guess a question I would ask you is, why should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons?