Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Iran's 'Plan B' for a nuclear bomb

  1. #1
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,560

    Default Iran's 'Plan B' for a nuclear bomb

    [*******#404040]Iran is developing a second path to a nuclear weapons capability by operating a plant that could produce plutonium, satellite images show for the first time.[/COLOR]


    [*******#3F3F3F][FONT=georgia]By James Kirkup, David Blair, Holly Watt and Claire Newell[/FONT][/COLOR]


    [FONT=arial]The Telegraph can disclose details of activity at a heavily-guarded Iranian facility from which international inspectors have been barred for 18 months.

    [FONT=arial]Heavy water is needed to operate a nuclear reactor that can produce plutonium, which could then be used to make a bomb.[/FONT]

    [FONT=arial]The images show signs of activity at the Arak plant, including a cloud of steam that indicates heavy-water production.[/FONT]

    [/FONT]
    CONTINUED: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...lear-bomb.html

    In this report that includes a video of analysis of satellite pictures, the Telegraph demonstrates that heavy water production has started in the Arak plant.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    804

    Default

    AFAIK they would also need heavy water reactor + plutonium separation plant.

    Neither of them can be built in Iran witout significant outside help.

    Also, if they start building plutonium separation plant, I would expect it to be bombed to dust long before being finished.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel44CZ View Post
    AFAIK they would also need heavy water reactor + plutonium separation plant.

    Neither of them can be built in Iran witout significant outside help.

    Also, if they start building plutonium separation plant, I would expect it to be bombed to dust long before being finished.
    The heavy water reactor is under construction in the Arak site.
    The plutonium separation technology could come from NK and its plant could be built in a secret location like the Syrian reactor that was destroyed in 2007.

  4. #4
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Even one, two or three nuclear bombs wouldn't bring them huge advantages, they could be destroyed and they don't have appropriate delivering systems. Even with a delivering system as an MRBM they would be probably intercepted by Israel.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    I'd imagine this is the kind of "red line" that could convince the US to take action.

  6. #6
    The member that no one remembers. IconOfEvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The United American Empire
    Posts
    15,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alcaldemb View Post
    I'd imagine this is the kind of "red line" that could convince the US to take action.
    Oh who are we kidding, there have been so many red lines already and nothing has been done.

    The long complacency means the Ayatollahs are getting the bomb, no one has and seems will try to stop it

  7. #7
    Senior Member Chairborne Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    1st Keyboard Commando Brigade
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,434

    Default

    I expect this new site to experience random interruptions in service, like equipment malfunctions, explosions, and software issues.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Acheron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    мини-пиндостан
    Posts
    1,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan12 View Post
    Even one, two or three nuclear bombs wouldn't bring them huge advantages, they could be destroyed and they don't have appropriate delivering systems. Even with a delivering system as an MRBM they would be probably intercepted by Israel.
    Not to mention the fact that a nuclear attack on Israel will lead to Israeli nuclear retaliation on Iran.
    Looks like we are inexorably heading into a mini-MAD scenario within the region.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acheron View Post
    Not to mention the fact that a nuclear attack on Israel will lead to Israeli nuclear retaliation on Iran.
    Looks like we are inexorably heading into a mini-MAD scenario within the region.
    The idea of a "mini-MAD scenario" in such an unstable region is freightening.

  10. #10
    Μολὼν λαβέ Hollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Stuck in the rain and mud again.
    Posts
    23,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan12 View Post
    Even one, two or three nuclear bombs wouldn't bring them huge advantages, they could be destroyed and they don't have appropriate delivering systems. Even with a delivering system as an MRBM they would be probably intercepted by Israel.
    Maybe it is more for a nuclear umbrella, defensive use, than any kind of offensive use. Often a threat is more powerful than the actual action.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollis View Post
    Maybe it is more for a nuclear umbrella, defensive use, than any kind of offensive use. Often a threat is more powerful than the actual action.
    Exactly. Nuclear weapons would only serve as a guarantee for the Iranian regime.

  12. #12
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alcaldemb View Post
    I'd imagine this is the kind of "red line" that could convince the US to take action.
    US Not a chance. The IDF, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollis View Post
    Maybe it is more for a nuclear umbrella, defensive use, than any kind of offensive use. Often a threat is more powerful than the actual action.
    Quote Originally Posted by Surenas View Post
    Exactly. Nuclear weapons would only serve as a guarantee for the Iranian regime.
    Exactly!

  13. #13
    Warmonger Nacho-Libre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,764

    Default

    The US will not get involved in Iran, so if anyone wants to stop them from getting the bomb, it will be Israel. Yes, the likely reason behind getting the bomb is guaranteeing the survival of the regime, but lets not forget how much they hate Israel. Or how many times they've threatened to turn Israel into dust.

    Then again, if Iran gets the bomb, and they decide to be stupid about it, they're history.

  14. #14
    Senior Member geolocator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    EU/Russia
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    The problem with IR-40 is that even if a country develops a peaceful program they usually begin with PHWR like in Arak. Lower enrichment is a valuable bonus. India goes this way.Canada too. I don't think that it's dangerous because they can enrich uranium already. To make a Pu warhead too is a waste of time. But it's important to control how they use spent fuel.
    Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) comes to end of life and should be closed. IR-40 looks like a replacement with affordable fuel.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Astaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Eurogeddon
    Age
    30
    Posts
    4,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollis View Post
    Maybe it is more for a nuclear umbrella, defensive use, than any kind of offensive use. Often a threat is more powerful than the actual action.
    Imho this only works with rational thinking actors like NATO and USSR were during the Cold War. The Mullahs are nutbirds and I don't wish to see nuclear weapons in the hand of an ideology that promotes martyrdom through suicide bombings. Maybe the current generation of Mullahs wouldn't use them offensive, but who can guarantee that no maniacs replace them in a few years who would?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •