Here are the most recent Director-General’s reports on Iran and Syria.
Since it is Memorial Day, I am not going to even bother reading these until tomorrow.
Update | May 31, 7:59 am I’ve edited the post a couple of times with regard to sourcing.
GOV/2010/28 and GOV/2010/29
Have to love the sensationalist NYTimes headlines: “U.N. Says Iran Has Fuel for 2 Nuclear Weapons.”
Yes, if they enrich it.
Niger has fuel for more than two nuclear weapons — it’s in the ground.
NYTimes: leading you to the second unnecessary war in the mideast.
Sanger’s NYT article title for the report is “U.N. Says Iran Has Fuel for 2 Nuclear Weapons.” What is his game? Does he want to sell more papers or be the Judith Miller of Iran? This behavior of constantly misinforming the public about Iran’s nuclear program is dangerous and disingenuous.
As for the report, my feeling is that IRI is going to park at this level of LEU production per day (4 Kg) and the total number of centrifuges 1.3 to 2 modules (3936 to 5904). If new sanctions are enforced by UNSC, it is very likely that the reaction will be to put more modules, that are under vacuum, on line immediately.
A partial listing of countries which have or have had some type of enrichment include Australia (laser enrichment), Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, potentially Israel, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea (though microscopic), the United Kingdom, and the United States. thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to develop nuclear weapons. When over 30 industrial nations have operable nuclear power plants, about any industrialized nation could develop nuclear weapons within a short time frame if it decided to do so.
I wonder how many countries have how much fuel to make how many nuclear bombs.
Yes, and if Iran were to suspend enrichment tomorrow it would still have enough fuel for 2 nuclear bombs, since Sanger and Broad don’t seem to care about the enrichment level when coming up with their inflammatory and stupid headlines.
So sanctions, bombing etc. would still leave Iran with fuel for 2 nuclear bombs.
So go home Hillary — time for some fly fishing: Iran has the bomb.
Perhaps the NYTimes should do everyone a favor and stop wanking their readership.
Can we expect NYT headlines about the Brazilian nuclear bombs?
so, when Iran does produce a nuclear weapon, what’s your point?
Amano seems to be very much falling into line when it comes to the tone being adopted in these reports. Unlike Baradei who at least appealed to those states (US) withholding documents re: weaponisation studies, to make them public – Amano has let this go entirely!
I think it was Cheryl Rofer who mentioned that an average NY home has enough uranium under it to make a bomb….
The issue is that the 20% enriched uranium, perhaps combined with hidden new generation centrifuges with a better efficiency in some underground bunker, can quickly take the 20% enriched and bring it up to weapons grade in perhaps 4 weeks. If the rest of the weapon has already been constructed, waiting only for the pit, there is very little time for a military solution to a small undiscovered enrichment facility. By stockpiling the 20% material, they are only a few months away in a breakout scenario. Further, going forward, the 20% enriched material can supply neutrons for a U-238 target in the research reactor to create Plutonium 239, to then be separated in the MIX hot cells. Very much the stuff of breakout, and we are only one political decision away. Once they have two weapons, they may have sufficient deterrence to manufacture a few dozen — enough to hold every major city on earth hostage while they do whatever they want with their conventional military.
Good point Anonymous, but that is an issue you have with the NPT, not Iran.
I agree you should try to develop and push through a better treaty. Good luck.