CIA analysts: No convincing evidence for atom bomb program

[Simon_Jester]

That's what confuses me too. I've heard some interesting stuff lately about how the Monica Lewinsky scandal tied into Hussein's decision to expel the inspectors and keep playing coy about whether he actually had WMD, but it just seems like an act of insanity when you look at it from an external point of view.

It seems almost as crazy for the Iranians to be so fanatical about developing their own nuclear program that outsiders can't tell whether there's a bomb program in there or not, to the point where the IAEA and the CIA disagree about the facts.

Is there some reason to doubt the IAEA's neutrality here?

[Thanas]

Why is it illogical or crazy? If your goal is to keep the west agitated at you (to keep your population in line) while at the same time being safe from invasion without spending too many resources on it and losing all Chinese/Russian capability it makes perfect sense.

[Simon_Jester]

It just seems like a very dangerous game to play- like juggling lit matches in a powder magazine to keep a crowd entertained.

From my point of view, there has to be a more efficient way to alienate the West. And rumors of a nuclear program you haven't got don't do a damn thing to make you more safe from invasion in the short run. You have to have tested a nuclear device before anyone will believe there's a danger of you using it in the event of war.

[Thanas]

It just seems like a very dangerous game to play- like juggling lit matches in a powder magazine to keep a crowd entertained.

The actual risk of invasion is minimal due to the strategic situation.

From my point of view, there has to be a more efficient way to alienate the West. And rumors of a nuclear program you haven't got don't do a damn thing to make you more safe from invasion in the short run. You have to have tested a nuclear device before anyone will believe there's a danger of you using it in the event of war.

None of those give the crowd national pride and nobody is going to invade Iran anyway.

[Simon_Jester]

So, you're saying that the Iranian government can rely for its safety on the willingness of the United States not to attack them?

I'm surprised to hear that. If I were a Middle Eastern country telling myself "the Americans won't really attack me!" I know I'd feel compelled to stop, rewind the conversation a bit, and think through my plan again.

[irishmick79]

Isn't Israel basically playing that game? To my knowledge the Israeli government hasn't officially acknowledged having nuclear weapons, right? Yet everybody knows they have bombs, or at least the capability to deploy them. Have they officially tested a working nuke? If not, wouldn't Iran be following in their footsteps on this course?

[DoomSquid]

Oh, I dunno. There is an election coming up, and killing a shitload of brown people in the name of Truth, Justice and Cheap Gasoline might give him a much needed boost in the polls.

I think you've misgauged the mood and mindset of the American people.

I would argue that the US isn't always jingoistic and ready to rally behind a president who fights random wars. The idea that a "short victorious war" will make your regime popular depends on careful timing and choice of opponent- doing it at a random time is worse than useless.

During the 1980s, Americans were totally uninterested in major foreign wars, because of Vietnam. Reagan could have deployed a hundred thousand troops to some war zone, it was within his power, but he'd have been crucified by the media of the time. In the '90s we became a bit more willing, but not intensely willing- I suspect this was one of the reasons Bush Sr. didn't try to occupy Iraq in 1991; he wasn't sure that the average voter would support a prolonged occupation and guerilla war, only twenty years after Vietnam.

After 9/11, Bush could get away with nearly anything- but he used that political capital very heavily, to fight wars that almost everyone in the country could tell were pointless. Except for a residuum of mindless cheerleaders, everyone was happy when we started pulling out of Iraq. War is less popular to Americans today than it was ten years ago.

Now, with the budget in terrible shape, and most of the mindless war-cheerleaders already being totally loyal to his political opponents no matter what he does, Obama has no incentive at all to provoke a new war. Entering one that's already started, to defend another country against aggression (think Gulf War I) might work for him, but starting a war that would have to end in yet another Iraqistan-style occupation would be a disaster.

Trying to occupy Iran would make Iraq look like paradise. Iran is larger, it's got more people, large portions of it are worse terrain than Iraq, it has a more competent military than Iraq, it has a deliberately constructed pre-placed insurgency ready to spring into action upon an invasion (and it's been constructed by the people backing such groups as Hezbollah, so they know what they're doing), and all the Iranians hate America. It's not like Iraq, where there was a large group of people who wanted the West there, and another larger group who were ambivalent; none of the Iranians want Western 'intervention' of that nature, even the ones that aren't fond of the regime.

It would be a nightmare that dwarfs Iraq and Afghanistan, and personally, I don't think America could do it; the ISAF can't exert reliable control over the whole of Afghanistan, and we're talking about a country with similar terrain in lots of places, and a great deal more in terms of resources and pre-planning. In the absence of them having a working, demonstrated nuclear deterrent, that absolute guarantee of an extended bloodbath for no ultimate result (any American puppet government would have no popular support at all, and would last exactly as long as American troops were propping it up, after which there would be an even more virulently anti-American government in control) and the ability to close the Straights is an excellent deterrent. They know that they can't win an open fight, so they've set out to make themselves as hard as possible to actually occupy, and make sure that everybody else knows it as well.

[Simon_Jester]

Isn't Israel basically playing that game? To my knowledge the Israeli government hasn't officially acknowledged having nuclear weapons, right? Yet everybody knows they have bombs, or at least the capability to deploy them. Have they officially tested a working nuke? If not, wouldn't Iran be following in their footsteps on this course?

That's the trick- they have made an effort to make it clear that they have nuclear weapons, not that they might acquire some weapons five years down the line.

Everyone knowing you have nuclear weapons makes you safe, even if you officially don't acknowledge their existence.

Everyone knowing you might have them in five years if they don't stop you does not make you safe.

[Thanas]

So, you're saying that the Iranian government can rely for its safety on the willingness of the United States not to attack them?

I'm surprised to hear that. If I were a Middle Eastern country telling myself "the Americans won't really attack me!" I know I'd feel compelled to stop, rewind the conversation a bit, and think through my plan again.

It is not about willingness. It is about ability. The US is perfectly able to beat up on countries that have no real military or whose military has been weakened by a decade+ of sanctions and no-fly zones. Occupying Iran, which has spent no small amount of resources to make any invasion very hard and the ensuing occupation a nightmare, is not something that the US can do. And definitely not at this point.

The best the US can do is to bomb Iranian nuclear sites (which are not that easy to bomb in the first place). And that would give the Iranians another reason to rally their populace behind them. Getting bombed might even be a win-win for them. Either the attack fails, giving them reason to crow about it and they can rally their populace behind them, or the attack succeeds, which too gives them a reason to rally their populace and also might give them enough cover with the Russians and Chinese to supply more arms to Hezbollah or extend their influence in Iraq. And all they would lose would be a capability they might not be that interested in since 2003 anyway.

[Mr Bean]

Thanas, America can do much more than just bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. We can level the country. Break damns, crack pipelines, drop bridges, send the entire Iranian Navy to the bottom, clear cut the Iranian Army and Guards Army bases and destroy the entiery of the government structure. What we can't do your correct is occupy as Iran has millions of pounds of war material pre-stationed to make Iraq look like a all girl pillow fight. America has the ability to destroy the country of Iran as it exists, at the expensive of turning millions of people into refugees and birthing a second Afghanistan. Never mind the long term terrorism issues such a large scale deliberate social annihilation will cause.

But it is tempting to US war planners. Just fly in, blow up anything that looks vaguely military. Then start denying the Iranian population the essentials like electricity, transportation and water and wait for Iran to go Mad Max. What would replace it could be even more dangerous to American than a nuclear armed Iran in both the long and short term. But we Americans do so love beating up countries that can't fight back.

[Thanas]

Clearly just destroying Iran from the air is not politically feasible either, which is why I did not even consider it. I also doubt the US has the munitions stockpiled to do so at the moment.

[Skgoa]

and all the Iranians hate America.

Stop watching only american news tv.

[MKSheppard]

How effective would SAM sites be? How effective in deterring or discouraging enemy attacks would a purely defensive SAM-based strategy be?

Effective enough. The US might have just enough stand off PGMs to overwhelm a SAM belt strategy, but not everyone is the US. Look at how fast the EU powers ran through their standoff PGMs in Libya and had to be resupplied from NATO/US warstocks.

Additionally, you don't need to buy just S-300s.

If you're so worried about the evil JUICE attacking you with Jericho IRBMs, buy some S-400 battalions from Russia to provide ABM protection. If anyone complains, point out that it's just an imperialist plot by the West to deny others what it seeks.

Additionally, buy thousands of subsonic antiship/land attack missiles from your Chinese suppliers.

There, I've made Iran completely impregnable to invasion, because:

A.) It would be too hard to mess up my shit.
and
B.) I can mess up other people's shit.

All without the politically messy optics of an Atomic Bomb program, and best of all, all of my purchases can be justified as purely defensive measures -- even the cruise missiles/anti-ship missiles, because I'm smart enough to not buy ones long enough ranged to reach Israel, just ones long enough to mess up my neighbors.

[MKSheppard]

Now you ask, what about Atomic Power?

Well, you see; that's pretty simple. I just buy off the shelf reactors from France that use Caramelized fuel. To ward off any possible embargo, I plan my buys well ahead to provide me with a decent stockpile of spare parts and caramel fuel.

You *could* try to proliferate with caramel, but it would be just so technically difficult and problematic that it's cheaper to start an enrichment program from scratch.

I also make a very public nuclear research program to do small scale R&D into the nuclear fuel cycle -- with a total centrifuge installed count of 25-40, instead of thousands. This is enough to produce enriched uranium to the levels required for small research reactors and pretty much basic research into uranium fuels.

I also make the program very, very open. Open as in inviting nuclear researchers and physicists from all over the Middle East to work on it for peaceful applications. So if the Israelis decide that this is somehow dangerous, they kill a whole bunch of highly ranked scientists from dozens of countries, instead of just Iranians.

[Simon_Jester]

Clearly just destroying Iran from the air is not politically feasible either, which is why I did not even consider it.

Do you believe the Iranians' picture of American politics is accurate enough that they can be sure of that? Sure that the US won't decide to bomb a country into the iron age to stop it from becoming a nuclear-armed rival? Hell, I live in the US, and I'm not 100% confident of that myself.

Were I an Iranian, I would not want to take the chance. It strikes me very dangerous.

And I'm utterly flabberghasted to learn that you think the Americans wouldn't do that to another country. What is making you so certain of this?

I also doubt the US has the munitions stockpiled to do so at the moment.

Now that strikes me as whistling in the dark. Remember how long it took the US to start lobbing Tomahawks at Libyan army installations?

This is the reason the US Air Force maintains a global network of bases- it really does not take that long to fly pallets of missiles and bombs into Diego Garcia for the attack. Or to move carriers several thousand miles. These things might take weeks of preparation, even months, but they could be done much faster than Iran could create nuclear bombs and a credible system for delivering them as a deterrent.

[Aaron MkII]

How effective would SAM sites be? How effective in deterring or discouraging enemy attacks would a purely defensive SAM-based strategy be?

Effective enough. The US might have just enough stand off PGMs to overwhelm a SAM belt strategy, but not everyone is the US. Look at how fast the EU powers ran through their standoff PGMs in Libya and had to be resupplied from NATO/US warstocks.

Additionally, you don't need to buy just S-300s.

If you're so worried about the evil JUICE attacking you with Jericho IRBMs, buy some S-400 battalions from Russia to provide ABM protection. If anyone complains, point out that it's just an imperialist plot by the West to deny others what it seeks.

Additionally, buy thousands of subsonic antiship/land attack missiles from your Chinese suppliers.

There, I've made Iran completely impregnable to invasion, because:

A.) It would be too hard to mess up my shit.
and
B.) I can mess up other people's shit.

All without the politically messy optics of an Atomic Bomb program, and best of all, all of my purchases can be justified as purely defensive measures -- even the cruise missiles/anti-ship missiles, because I'm smart enough to not buy ones long enough ranged to reach Israel, just ones long enough to mess up my neighbors.

So what about the B-2's? I realize there not a Wunderwaffe and there are only 20 but do they limitations beyond that?

[Mr Bean]

So what about the B-2's? I realize there not a Wunderwaffe and there are only 20 but do they limitations beyond that?

There are physically more targets than their are B2's. Also B2's are not magic, a sufficient powerful radar can find them. Plus the target lists rules out a day 1 strike since the number of targets >Entire B2 fleet's bomb-bay load.

[Thanas]

Do you believe the Iranians' picture of American politics is accurate enough that they can be sure of that? Sure that the US won't decide to bomb a country into the iron age to stop it from becoming a nuclear-armed rival? Hell, I live in the US, and I'm not 100% confident of that myself.

Then your opinion of Obama is actually lower than mine if you think him ordering such a terror bombing campaign is even remotely possible.

Were I an Iranian, I would not want to take the chance. It strikes me very dangerous.

it is not as if Iran is not taking precautions against that.

And I'm utterly flabberghasted to learn that you think the Americans wouldn't do that to another country.

If you even think it possible that I think the US to be some cartoonish evil empire, then you are an idiot. No scratch that, you got to be the most stupidest idiot around.

What is making you so certain of this?

The fact that the USA have never carried out a bombing campaign that was aimed purely at the civilian population. Not even when they tried to stop a genocide in Yugoslavia did they bomb everything that moved.

Now that strikes me as whistling in the dark. Remember how long it took the US to start lobbing Tomahawks at Libyan army installations?

Alright then, provide proof for your assertion.

This is the reason the US Air Force maintains a global network of bases- it really does not take that long to fly pallets of missiles and bombs into Diego Garcia for the attack. Or to move carriers several thousand miles. These things might take weeks of preparation, even months, but they could be done much faster than Iran could create nuclear bombs and a credible system for delivering them as a deterrent.

Blablablablabla....none of that in anyway is an answer to my point.

[Irbis]

Thanas, America can do much more than just bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. We can level the country. Break damns, crack pipelines, drop bridges, send the entire Iranian Navy to the bottom, clear cut the Iranian Army and Guards Army bases and destroy the entiery of the government structure. What we can't do your correct is occupy as Iran has millions of pounds of war material pre-stationed to make Iraq look like a all girl pillow fight. America has the ability to destroy the country of Iran as it exists, at the expensive of turning millions of people into refugees and birthing a second Afghanistan. Never mind the long term terrorism issues such a large scale deliberate social annihilation will cause.

But it is tempting to US war planners. Just fly in, blow up anything that looks vaguely military. Then start denying the Iranian population the essentials like electricity, transportation and water and wait for Iran to go Mad Max. What would replace it could be even more dangerous to American than a nuclear armed Iran in both the long and short term. But we Americans do so love beating up countries that can't fight back.

How?

USA tried that in 1999 with Serbia, having advantage of half a dozen close bases build up since 50s to fight EVIL RUSSKIES and all it did was to make NATOs arsenals run dry and Serbia being nowhere as badly affected as above. Sure, USA could seriously wreck shit in Iran, but that country is 10x larger than Serbia, could absorb higher losses, and such an attack would be far more awkward and expensive. Iran fought 8 year long war being constantly bombed/shelled and didn't gave up, what makes you think a few weeks will do what one of the most brutal conflicts of last century couldn't?

Heck, last time we had war fought entirely from the sky, in Lebanon, Israel couldn't break a country that is positively tiny next to Iran with airforce equal to massing of 6 US carriers. Verdict: no, just no. At least not from USA.

Also, the whole part about 'Afghanistan' repeat is absurd. Iran is civilized country with civilization built on foundations several millennia old, not some tribal Goatistan that would shatter once kicked. Their response would be to rebuild, not to flee. Even if it was for a moment to flee, to where? Iraq? Afghanistan? Seriously?

Now you ask, what about Atomic Power?

Well, you see; that's pretty simple. I just buy off the shelf reactors from France that use Caramelized fuel. To ward off any possible embargo, I plan my buys well ahead to provide me with a decent stockpile of spare parts and caramel fuel.

Remind me, what happened last time when country with name starting with "Ira" bought off the shelf reactors from France?

I also make the program very, very open. Open as in inviting nuclear researchers and physicists from all over the Middle East to work on it for peaceful applications. So if the Israelis decide that this is somehow dangerous, they kill a whole bunch of highly ranked scientists from dozens of countries, instead of just Iranians.

Wait, what?

You just made your nuclear program that much easier to infiltrate, how exactly is that going to stop Israel from slipping a bad case of explosive poisoning exclusively to Iranian scientists? And from where these other scientists are going to come? From countries that hate Iran's guts? Assuming they would come after 2-3 Iranian scientists were Allahized by Mossad as example, that is.

Additionally, buy thousands of subsonic antiship/land attack missiles from your Chinese suppliers.

There, I've made Iran completely impregnable to invasion, because:

A.) It would be too hard to mess up my shit.
and
B.) I can mess up other people's shit.

All without the politically messy optics of an Atomic Bomb program, and best of all, all of my purchases can be justified as purely defensive measures -- even the cruise missiles/anti-ship missiles, because I'm smart enough to not buy ones long enough ranged to reach Israel, just ones long enough to mess up my neighbors.

...and then Israel, one country that is not reliant on Straits of Hormuz, attacks you anyway

What you do, piss off the rest of the world by closing the Straits, sealing your fate, or shake your fists ineffectively towards one country your missiles can't reach?

It might not be a bad plan, but it strikes me as utterly ineffective against one country that is most likely to attack.

[MKSheppard]

USA tried that in 1999 with Serbia, having advantage of half a dozen close bases build up since 50s to fight EVIL RUSSKIES and all it did was to make NATOs arsenals run dry

In 1999, things were a lot different. JDAM was just entering service, and inventories of it were low. Now? We have precision out the ass of everything, and new types such as SDB entering service.

Iran fought 8 year long war being constantly bombed/shelled and didn't gave up, what makes you think a few weeks will do what one of the most brutal conflicts of last century couldn't?

Iran vs Iraq was sort of like watching two idiots go at it. It was World War One being fought with the weapons of World War Three.

Remind me, what happened last time when country with name starting with "Ira" bought off the shelf reactors from France?

Let's see. The deal was to obtain Osiris and Isis class reactors, and they ran on...93% enriched uranium.

Guess what the enrichment level of Oralloy (Oak Ridge Alloy) used in early U.S. Nuclear Weapons was?

93.5%.

By contrast, guess what the initial enrichment level of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station (CCNPS) near me when it went online with it's initial fuel loading in 1974?

2.05% to 2.99%.

By the way; after the Osiris/Isis reactor Cores were severely damaged by an unexplained explosion while sitting in a storage yard in April 1979; the French came under severe pressure by the United States to modify them so that they would run on Caramel fuel, which is only 8% enrichment and can't easily be reprocessed.

The Iraqis at that point applied OIL PRESSURE, and the Frenchies decided to stick to the original agreement of 93% Enrichment.

That made Operation BABYLON inevitable.

With Caramel fuelled reactors, a large amount of fears of ZOMG TEH BOMB PROLIFERATION ZOMG are removed, and thus pressure to BOMB IRAN.

You just made your nuclear program that much easier to infiltrate, how exactly is that going to stop Israel from slipping a bad case of explosive poisoning exclusively to Iranian scientists?

That's the entire point. It's the difference between a secret program which nobody knows anything and assumes the worst (all those huge bunkers capable of holding tonnes of centrifuges buried under earth don't help either), versus an open programme where Israel can just insert an agent on an IAEA inspection tour who takes detailed pinhole camera snaps of the entire programme, and then conclude that it actually is a legimitate program with no bomb making aims.

Assuming they would come after 2-3 Iranian scientists were Allahized by Mossad as example, that is.

Except that this is a Random Alternate Reality (RAR) in which Reza Mohammed Shapp has been a major player in Iranian politics; who authorized a totally different procurement strategy militarily and nuclear-wise for the last decade and a half.

...and then Israel, one country that is not reliant on Straits of Hormuz, attacks you anyway

...

It might not be a bad plan, but it strikes me as utterly ineffective against one country that is most likely to attack.

Do you lack reading comprehension or what? I specifically stated that I would be buying several battalions of S-300s a year with all the money wasted on the Iranian ballistic missile and bomb programme.

The IAF wouldn't even get past the border, since they'd never attack.

Send a couple dozen aircraft, which make up the cream of the crop of the IAF, with a significant portion of the IAF's fighting power in those airframes, into the teeth of a dense, high technology SAM belt?

It's a huge world of difference between attacking a Nuclear power plant that has a I-HAWK system defending it versus one with a S-300PMU Battalion defending it.

What you do, piss off the rest of the world by closing the Straits, sealing your fate, or shake your fists ineffectively towards one country your missiles can't reach?

Remind me how North Korea got away with sinking a South Korean naval ship with severe loss of life? Oh yeah, it was the huge tonnes of conventional military weaponry aimed at Seoul across the boarder.

Same principle in play.

[Irbis]

In 1999, things were a lot different. JDAM was just entering service, and inventories of it were low. Now? We have precision out the ass of everything, and new types such as SDB entering service.

Yes, new types are entering stock. But my point was about quantity, and I seriously doubt USA has more bombs in total now than they did in 1999, especially after Libya campaign. If the stock wasn't enough for Serbia, they would need an order of magnitude more to match even that in Iran, never mind the total destruction described in the post I replied then.

Iran vs Iraq was sort of like watching two idiots go at it. It was World War One being fought with the weapons of World War Three.

Yes. But the point was, if country didn't gave up after 8 year long war fought with liberal WMD usage and million dead, 8 weeks of bombing sure as hell won't shake it.

Let's see. The deal was to obtain Osiris and Isis class reactors, and they ran on...93% enriched uranium.

Guess what the enrichment level of Oralloy (Oak Ridge Alloy) used in early U.S. Nuclear Weapons was?

93.5%.

By contrast, guess what the initial enrichment level of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station (CCNPS) near me when it went online with it's initial fuel loading in 1974?

2.05% to 2.99%.

Ok. Still, the point I was making was more about the fact that back then, de facto western ally was bombed despite everyone maintaining how peaceful the reactor was. If Israel was willing to go so far, they would surely bomb western enemy if they come to conclusion Iran's reactor is in any way dangerous to Israel, no matter how slight the danger is. USA might have paused before pulling the trigger, Israel was always overtly cautious over its security, especially when it came to bombing neighbours, IMHO. Putting faith into 'but it was peaceful!' sounds like good obituary "last words" example.

That's the entire point. It's the difference between a secret program which nobody knows anything and assumes the worst (all those huge bunkers capable of holding tonnes of centrifuges buried under earth don't help either), versus an open programme where Israel can just insert an agent on an IAEA inspection tour who takes detailed pinhole camera snaps of the entire programme, and then conclude that it actually is a legimitate program with no bomb making aims.

Right. And as I said, that would work with fears of, say, France or USA. But since when Israel gave a damn about what others think about Mossad special ops? All it takes is one decision of the Prime Minister of Israel (taken on unverified report of Mossad that there might be a second nuclear program or simply to distract internal public opinion) and half of the peaceful scientists might go to Allah. They already targeted scientists in Iran unaffiliated with supposed bomb program, purely on the basis of them being nuclear physics experts, little difference there, IMHO.

Do you lack reading comprehension or what? I specifically stated that I would be buying several battalions of S-300s a year with all the money wasted on the Iranian ballistic missile and bomb programme.

The IAF wouldn't even get past the border, since they'd never attack.

Send a couple dozen aircraft, which make up the cream of the crop of the IAF, with a significant portion of the IAF's fighting power in those airframes, into the teeth of a dense, high technology SAM belt?

Remind me, how well that plan worked in Bekaa Valley? In face of pretty much greatest air defence concentration ever used in war?

Sorry, as much as I like Russian arms, S-300 is cold war era system whose operation and radars had been thoroughly analysed by western experts, that, even if exported to Iran would have green crews (unless Putin would sell the latest version to Iran and also lend the Persians a few thousand of 'weapon consultants' as crews), that would go against the top class airforce specifically trained in defeating such systems.

If that had been S-400 or S-500, the story might have been different, but I have serious doubts about two decade old system made by country in which arms manufacturing chains pretty much disintegrated after USSR fell, negatively affecting the quality of product, too.

Remind me how North Korea got away with sinking a South Korean naval ship with severe loss of life? Oh yeah, it was the huge tonnes of conventional military weaponry aimed at Seoul across the boarder.

Except, in the above example, it's Israel who bombed reactor, to which Iran wouldn't be able to reply at all, besides using strategic rockets and/or terrorist organizations. To put it in above North/South Korea perspective, Sought Korea would need to have no army or US bases at all, while North Korea would have airforce of both Koreas and Japan combined.