Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Iran rules out suspending enrichment program
By GEORGE JAHN 07.19.08, 9:05 AM ET
GENEVA - Iran on Saturday ruled out freezing its uranium enrichment program, casting doubt over the value of its talks with six world powers less then an hour after they started.
The talks - with the U.S. in attendance for the first time - had raised expectations of possible compromise on a formula under which Iran would agree to stop expanding its enrichment activities. In exchange, the six powers - including the five permanent U.N. Security Council members - would hold off on passing new U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
But the comments from Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, appeared to indicate that his government was not prepared to budge on enrichment - at least going into the talks.
"Suspension - there is no chance for that," he told reporters gathered in the courtyard of Geneva's ornate City Hall, the venue of the negotiations.
There also appeared to be little progress inside the talks.
A Western diplomat in Geneva familiar with their substance said the Iranians were focusing on "the second or third step" of substantial negotiations without addressing what the six powers say is a prerequisite for such talks to happen - a freeze of their enrichment program.
The presence of U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns at the talks - the first instance of the Americans attending such meetings - had led to hopes of compromise.
The enrichment issue is key because the activity can produce either fuel for nuclear power stations or the material used in the fissile core of warheads. Iran has defied three sets of U.N. sanctions demanding it cease its program, saying it has a right to its peaceful uses under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But there is growing concern the Islamic Republic might want to build nuclear weapons instead.
Recent Iranian statements suggest Tehran is looking to improve ties with the United States, with officials speaking positively of deliberations by the Bush administration to open an interests section - an informal diplomatic presence - in Tehran after closing its embassy decades ago.
Although the U.S. says the Geneva talks focus only on the nuclear issue, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Friday they could also result in agreements to open a U.S. interest-protection bureau and have direct flights between the two nations.
U.S. interests in Iran are now represented by the Swiss Embassy in Tehran.
Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Official contacts between the two countries are extremely rare.
Imani said Tehran had not yet received a proposal from the U.S. on opening a representation but would "study it positively" if it did.
But he downplayed the presence of Burns - although the Americans had previously said they would not talk with the Iranians on nuclear issues unless Tehran was ready to stop all enrichment activity.
"He is (just) a member of the delegation" of the six countries engaging Iran on the nuclear issue, he said.
He also denied that the "freeze-for-freeze" formula - a stop to Iranian enrichment growth in exchange for no new U.N. sanctions - was formally on the agenda of the Geneva talks.
Chief EU envoy Javier Solana and Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili left together as the talks broke for lunch, speaking earnestly with each other. Burns followed some time later, accompanied only by an aide. All three declined to answer questions.
The Western diplomat - who demanded anonymity because his information was confidential - said Solana would try to coax Jalili into agreeing to discuss the "freeze-for-freeze" concept and focusing on substantial negotiations.
The United States and its five partners - Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany - remain committed to getting a full halt to Iranian enrichment. Still, Burns' decision to attend the Geneva talks shows that Washington may accept "freeze-for-freeze" - something less than full suspension - at least as a first step.
"Freeze-for-freeze" envisions a six-week commitment from both sides. Preliminary talks meant to lead to formal nuclear negotiations would start, Iran could continue enrichment but only at its present level, and the U.S. and its allies would stop pushing for new U.N. sanctions.
If this results in the start of formal talks, the Iranians would stop all enrichment temporarily. Those talks, in turn, are meant to secure Tehran's commitment for an indefinite ban on enrichment.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/19/ap5232189.html
French Doubts Up After Nuke Mishaps
Friday, Jul. 18, 2008 By BRUCE CRUMLEY
PARIS Tricastin nuclear plant
Security breaches at nuclear power plants are never a laughing matter. But with oil prices at near-record levels and the rush on to find safe, clean sources of energy, news of leaks at two different French nuclear sites could not have come at a worse time. Concern over the incidents is rekindling questions about the safety of France's giant nuclear power grid and could complicate the country's quest to become the world's leading purveyor of nuclear technology.
Related Articles
Forget Chernobyl, Nuclear Energy is Making a Comeback
From India to Finland, nuclear energy is making a comeback. But old fears die hard
On Friday France's Nuclear Safety Agency (ASN) revealed that damage to an underground conduit at the Romans-sur-Isère plant in southwestern France had allowed radioactive waste to leak, though in quantities so small, it said, to have "not at all affected the environment." But it was not the first such incident. The ASN announced July 7 that uranium-tainted waste liquids from the Tricastin nuclear plant, in southern France 30 miles northwest of Avignon, had leaked into surrounding rivers and topsoil. Inhabitants of the Vaucluse department were ordered to refrain from drinking water, eating locally caught fish, and irrigating crops with potentially contaminated water. The water prohibition remains in effect for thousands of parched locals as inspections lumber on. "We're being treated like sub-citizens," protested Yves Beck, mayor of neighboring town Bollène to the AFP. Qualifying what he called slow and unsympathetic response of authorities to the situation "unacceptable," Beck warns legal action for hardship and losses suffered may be taken. "We've told residents of Bollène, 'Don't sign anything unless you've sought the help of a lawyer.'"
Fighting words indeed — and over much more than simply safe drinking water. Nearly 80% of France's electricity is nuclear-generated, and French giant Areva has made a massive international business of constructing and managing nuclear facilities. France has made nuclear power a national priority since the early 1970s as French governments of all political stripes sought to lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil. The French public embraced nukes as the rest of Europe and the world said "no thanks." The result is France today has the second-largest nuclear network behind the U.S., and is the world's largest net exporter of electricity — a business expected to net around $4.5 billion in profit this year.
All that has helped Areva become a world leader in the nuclear field, providing one-stop shopping with construction, management, maintenance, waste and storage solutions. Under president Anne Lauvergeon, the firm has been an aggressive player everywhere from China to Britain and a formidable rival to American companies General Electric and Westinghouse even on American turf. However, news of nuclear incidents anywhere on the planet — particularly in Areva's own backyard — tends to squelch the appeal of nuclear power, record oil prices or not.
What is troubling about both recent French accidents is that they involved nuclear waste, the disposal of which is perhaps the major curb to nuclear power's appeal. Areva cited human error in the Tricastin incident and said it had fired the responsible director after an internal investigation found "evident lack of coordination" between administrative and working units had allowed contaminated waste to seep through the plant's theoretically impenetrable safety lining. Areva also faulted local operators for significant delays in alerting authorities once the breach had been identified.
The ASN's said the Romans-sur-Isère incident involved smaller quantities of radioactive matter and was caused by an entirely different problem than the Tricastin case. But the agency also noted the leak discovered Friday may have first occurred "several years back." Environmental groups have cited the breaches as more evidence of nuclear power's spotty safety record, and anti-nuke organization Greenpeace noted the government's "belated concern" reflected its unquestioning confidence in the technology's reliability.
Though both cases have been assigned the lowest rating on the seven-point scale of nuclear accidents, officials are moving to protect France's nuclear reputation. Even before news of Friday's incident broke, French Ecology Minister Jean-Louis Borloo ordered inspections of all 58 French nuclear installations and checks on radiation levels in the underground aquifers surrounding them. Borloo stressed there was no grounds to anticipate additional breaches. "I don't want people feeling we're hiding anything from them," Borloo told the daily Le Parisien.
Barring any further revelation of French breaches, this month's twin mishaps won't alter France's official policy on the technology — nor are they alone likely to undermine the French public's approval of it as a clean, cheap energy source. But should Borloo's inspections turn up additional failings, France's long-term bet on nuclear power could face shakier odds.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/19/ap5232189.html
Iran to limit cooperation with nuclear inspectors
By Thom Shanker and William J. Broad
Published: March 25, 2007
The government of Iran Sunday denounced as illegal a sanctions package approved unanimously over the weekend by the United Nations Security Council, and in retaliation announced that it would limit cooperation with the United Nations' nuclear oversight agency.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a defiant statement that "Iran's enrichment of uranium is a legal issue," maintaining that his nation's nuclear program was intended solely for energy production.
In contrast, he said, the Security Council's vote on Saturday imposing new sanctions on Iranian arms exports, the state-owned Bank Sepah and the Revolutionary Guard Corps "is not legal."
"We are not after an atomic bomb because it is not useful and our religion does not allow us to have it," he said in statements posted on his Web site, www.president.ir/en/
A spokesman for the government, Gholamhossein Elham, said on state television that Iran would restrict its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in response to the sanctions vote. "After this illegal resolution was passed against Iran last night, it forced the government to act based on Parliament's decision regarding the cooperation level with the agency and suspend parts of its activities with the agency," Elham said.
Today in Africa & Middle East
Baghdad's Sunnis live in a land of silent ruin Britain presses Iranians on captive naval personnel Israeli and Palestinian to hold regular talks
In the past, Iran has cut back on its cooperation with the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency in retaliation for actions meant to press it into curbing its nuclear efforts. The cutbacks have made it hard to assess the nuclear progress of Iran, including its ability to make fuel for a nuclear bomb.
The cutback Iran announced Sunday means that it would no longer provide early information to the agency about the design of new facilities that are capable of making atomic fuel.
David Albright, a former United Nations weapons inspector and the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear weapons, said the cooperation cutback could make it easier for Iran to build clandestine plants meant to enrich uranium for nuclear arms.
"To me, it's a serious retreat," he said in an interview. "They could build a backup centrifuge facility and not tell the IAEA It creates a situation where Iran could build a centrifuge facility in secret," in theory keeping it safe from attacks by the United States or Israel.
But a European diplomat who closely follows the IAEA's work said, "For now, it's not going to have much of an impact."
"It sounds tough," he added, but in theory it will only make a difference in the future if Iran chooses to push ahead with the construction of clandestine fuel plants.
A number of world leaders called on Iran Sunday to return to talks and consider a package of incentives to end its uranium enrichment program. Javier Solana, the foreign policy chief of the European Union, said in Berlin that he would reach out to Ali Larijani, Iran's nuclear negotiator, "to see whether we can find a route to negotiations."
Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, appealed for renewed negotiations, and he urged Iran "to urgently take the necessary steps to restore the international community's trust that its nuclear program is peaceful in nature."
Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said in New York that his country would issue an official response to an offer by the United States and five other powers — Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia — to return to talks aimed at ending the stalemate over Iran's nuclear program. But he gave no indication that Iran would suspend its uranium enrichment, a prerequisite set by the other nations involved.
Tensions with Iran also increased Sunday over its seizure of 15 British military personnel in waters off Iraq. Senior Iranian officials said the government was considering charging them with illegally entering its waters. Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that the navy personnel had been in Iranian waters and said that Iran should be aware that Britain considered the seizure of the sailors and marines a very serious act.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/26/africa/web-0326iran.php
Lost nuclear bomb possibly found
Device dropped in ocean off Georgia during Cold War
Monday, September 13, 2004
Government experts are investigating a claim that an unarmed nuclear bomb, lost off the Georgia coast at the height of the Cold War, might have been found, an Air Force spokesman said Monday.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/13/lost.bomb/index.html
I'd be very surprised if it hadn't been picked up long ago by a navy salvage operation. While the mechanisms would probably be inoperable, the fissile material would be of interest to certain unfriendlies these days.
But stranger things have happened!
U. S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACCIDENTS http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm
i would bet they picked up that bomb long ago but dont want to back off the oficial story of no nuclear blast. they have satelites that can detect the radiation signatures. i doubt its all blocked by the water.
even if true, who cares. 4 years in salt water would corrode anything. could the battery still work? we cant even keep maintained systems working for 40 years? this just scares people for no good reason.
NNRF---Nuclear giant in the making.
Connect-The-Dots-My-Friends!!...See Multi-Billion-Dollar contracts being Awarded to our NUCON-RF Consortium group ‘Next Year’ ...Building Nuclear Power Plants, in Russia and abroad!! ;)
**See…the link below to Mosnews dated 5-18-2006 displaying a ‘VERY HAPPY’ Mr. Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, the Government entity who controls our (NUCON-RF’s Co-Lead consortium partnered/allegiant companies of) ROSENERGOATOM “ROSATOM” & "ATOMSTROYEXPORT"…a.k.a. “Atomstroyeksport”.
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/govt/rosenerg.htm
**MosNews Dated 5-16-2006:
MosNews Created: 18.05.2006 09:15 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 10:00 MSK
----Russia Set to Expand Nuclear Sector by Launching 2 Reactors Annually — Official
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/05/18/reactors.shtml
Russia will commission at least two nuclear reactors a year beginning in 2010 as part of a massive effort to expand its nuclear energy sector, Russia’s top nuclear official said Wednesday, The Associated Press reported.
Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said the ambitious program would begin with the launch of construction next year of a new nuclear power plant near St. Petersburg, the ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies reported. The new plant with four nuclear reactors would cost $6 billion, Kiriyenko said. He said the new plant would be located next to the existing nuclear plant in Sosnovy Bor, near St. Petersburg.
Nuclear power accounts for 16 percent to 17 percent of Russia’s electricity generation, and the Kremlin has set a target to raise its share to one-quarter by 2030. Kiriyenko said recently that Russia would have to build 40 new reactors to meet the goal.
In recent years, Russia has overcome a public backlash against nuclear power that followed the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and the government has supported an ambitious program to develop its nuclear industry.
…..................{2creates Note; Re: ”1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster”…..
NUCON-RF Inc. awarded contract and Becomes Project Partner at Chernobyl 5-26-2006
http://www.nucon-rf.com/Pr05.htm
….........end of 2creates Note}…..............................
Kiriyenko said his agency also hoped to build more reactors abroad. He said China, in particular, was likely to place orders for more reactors after the successful launch of the first Russia-built nuclear reactor.
**Related NEWS:
Moscow, 17 January: Text of report by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS
(1-17-2006, Current Nuclear Power Plant under construction by NUCON-RF Consortium partner: “Atomstroyeksport”.
----Schedule of Work at Iranian Nuclear Plant Might Be Changed - Russian Company
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/360229/schedule_of_work_at_iranian_nuclear_plant_might_be_chang....
The schedule of construction and start-up work at Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant could be changed. The Russian company Atomstroyeksport, which runs the construction of the nuclear power plant, told ITAR-TASS news agency that "an Atomstroyeksport delegation is visiting Iran according to the previously-approved schedule of negotiations". The programme of discussion also includes issues related to the schedule for the construction of the Bushehr power plant," the company said.
"Russian proposals to change the schedule of construction- assembly and start-up work at the nuclear power plant were motivated only by technological considerations," Atomstroyeksport explained. A company expert explained that this is normal practice. Such negotiations take place on a regular basis because new aspects emerge during construction work all the time.""Initially, the station in Bushehr, which Western companies had started to build, was planned as a different type of reactor," the expert pointed out.
"The preliminary approval of the final schedule of work to build the Bushehr nuclear power plant is scheduled for February," Atomstroyeksport said. The company stressed that "the construction of the nuclear power plant is continuing at a normal pace". More than 3,500 Russian specialists are working at the construction site at the moment.
Earlier reports said that according to the working schedule of the project, it is planned to launch the first generating set in Bushehr in the fourth quarter of 2006.
NUCON-RF has entered into multiple alliances with Russian and European companies to market, distribute, and sell various products and services for the nuclear and waste water industries. Alliances have been formed with the following companies:
Rosenergoatom (“ROSATOM”);
ATOMSTROYEXPORT;
TPA Ltd. – PTPA, IKAR & SATURN;
TRI-ION – WasserTechnik;
Eurasian Water Partnership
http://www.nucon-rf.com/alliances.htm#_Toc131669904
NUCON-RF’s Strategic Plan
NUCON has commenced an acquisition program to acquire Russian companies that are highly specialized manufacturers of materials for Russian and foreign nuclear markets. These include companies who desire to 'Continue’ to improve their sales to the Russian Federation and foreign nuclear facilities or to be able to ‘Enter’ this market.
The strategic plan of NUCON is to establish strategic alliances with the Russian Federation agencies responsible for both ‘Domestic’ (ROSENERGOATOM) a.k.a. “ROSATOM” and ‘Foreign’ (ATOMSTROYEXPORT) markets and to acquire manufacturing facilities with engineering and research capabilities together with application specific technologies which establish an integrated platform of products and services for the entire nuclear cycle.
http://www.nucon-rf.com/acquisitions1.htm
What if that one city was NYC or DC... or Vegas?
TANSTAAFL & BOHICA! Any update on this Savannah nuclear payload?
"A thermonuclear bomb was lost in 12 feet of water and lies buried under a little sand within 1 mile of the beach. Is it armed? The Air Force is betting your life that it isn't." - Name Withheld
Founded in the colonial era, Savannah is a stately city with a warm heart - aptly termed the Hostess of the South. Designated by Conde' Nast Traveler as one of the top ten U.S. cities to visit, Savannah is a stroll back in time with hidden charms that could not help but entice the most jaded sophisticate. Porticoed mansions, moss-draped oaks, and churches nearly as stern as they are inviting, give Savannah a unique flavor found nowhere else in the world.
Twelve miles east of Savannah, beneath shallow layers of sand and water, an abandoned 7,600 pound nuclear bomb is biding its time, waiting to rain death and destruction on the southern Atlantic coastline. If not disarmed, perhaps some sleepy Sunday morning an atomic fireball will erupt on picturesque Wassaw Sound, shooting along nearby heavily traveled Interstate 80 with the force of a hundred hurricanes, instantly vaporizing tidal wetlands, and brutally firestorming a vibrant, thriving metropolis - women, children, more than 200,000 people instantly incinerated - into a crumbling, deserted heap of radioactive rubble.
A cold, calculated act of terrorism? Not quite. It's simply that the United States Air Force isn't in the habit of picking up after itself.
In February 1958, a B-47 Stratojet bomber had a midair collision with an F-86 Saberjet fighter southeast of Savannah and had to jettison the bomb in order to land safely. It was dumped in the dead of night somewhere along the southern shore of uninhabited Little Tybee Island. After a cursory search failed to reveal its whereabouts, the military threw up its hands and abandoned the search.
According to the Air Force, this rusting relic of the Cold War, designated No. 47782 Mark 15 Mod 0, contains decaying radioactive uranium and a detonator packing the wallop of 400 pounds of high explosive. The Deputy Director of the Air Force Nuclear Weapons and Proliferation Center, Major Don Robbins, thinks the Tybee bomb lies at least 5 miles from shore beneath 20 feet of water and 15 feet of sand and silt. If the bomb exploded, it "would create maybe a 10 foot diameter hole and shock waves through the water of approximately 100 yards . . . boats going over it would not even notice. They might see some bubbles coming out around them." According to the Air Force, there is no chance of a nuclear explosion because the Tybee bomb lacks a key plutonium capsule.
Derek Duke, a former Air Force pilot who has been researching the matter for several years doesn't agree. "It's a nuclear bomb...it's like if I take the battery out of your car, then I try to convince you it's not a car." Duke points to an April 1966 letter to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from W.J. Howard, who was then the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. Howard wrote that four nuclear weapons had been lost and never recovered. Two were "weapons-less capsules," assumed to be incapable of a nuclear blast, but the Savannah bomb and a device lost in the western Pacific Ocean in 1965 are listed as being "complete."
But the Air Force says that Howard got it wrong. Speaking in an official capacity, Major Cheryl Law reiterated the Air Force's stock statement concerning unrecovered nuclear devices, "the bomb off the coast of Savannah is not capable of a nuclear explosion." What about the ton or so of enriched uranium encased in the bomb? "To have that hurt you, you would actually have to ingest it."
Let's see, that means that Howard was either a "complete" idiot (no pun intended) or he intentionally lied in writing to Congress and signed his name at the bottom. I wonder if Howard, analyzing the incident eight years after it happened, might have had access to information not available today. Although he now says that he may have made a mistake, it seems likely that the Department of Defense coerced Howard into changing his story.
Howard H. Dixon, a former crew chief who loaded nuclear weapons onto planes at Hunter Field, Georgia, from 1957 to 1959, claims the bombs were always armed. "Never in my air force career did I install a Mark 15 weapon without installing the plutonium capsule," he insists.
A local resident, Donald Ernst, runs a website about the bomb called Tybeebomb.com. Ernst says that "if all accounts of the bomb are correct, as far as the make and model, it is 20 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima . . . . I believe, using common sense, that if the bomb were to detonate, it would crack the Floridian aquifer. This aquifer is the source of drinking water for four-plus states. Why not take something that is inherantly dangerous and remove it? Sometimes the government really amazes me."
At a special hearing called by Mayor Walter Parker, the City Council of Tybee Island approved a resolution which urged the Department of Energy and the Air Force to locate the bomb and give residents a "realistic assessment of potential dangers" to address local concerns "about the safety, health and peace of mind and economic livelihood of residents of the city and its visitors."
Could it be that the Air Force weighed the cost of conducting another search ($1 million or more) against the risk and Tybee Island/Savannah came out the loser? Even with 20/15 hindsight into the survival-of-the-fittest mindset of the Air Force in that era, it beggars the imagination to envision a nameless, faceless staff functionary cavalierly mumbling "So long, Savannah!," as he stamps the report "TOP SECRET" and returns to business as usual.
http://www.fdungan.com/savannah.htm
why not just let them have nuckes? you just tell them that if one of theirs is ever detonated in another country, we use ours and obliterate their country. that would also give them incentive to not let it get stollen because we wouldnt care; its their responsibility. kind of like the MAD theory in the 60's.
That seems like a reasonable prediction. Really, it just seemed fitting that I have a post on this board.
After more fits & starts & delays, a compromise will eventually be found where Iran continues lo-level enrichment for nuclear plants under IAEA watchful eyes. However, Iran will also secretly continue a weapons enrichment program, but at a much smaller scale, slower pace than they prefer. Iran's goal of joining the nuclear club will be delayed, not extinguished.
Iran has been needing to take a good Bowel Movement for so long, that their farts are beginning to really stink. Instead of continuing to fart around I think they are due for a good healthy shi..... any day now. The IAEA is going to get a nose full come this friday, when they report, my guess is, they are going to want to plug some holes tight. Instead of saying Iran they will be saying I ran and ran and ran.
Nuclear inspectors to visit Iran
United Nations nuclear inspectors will arrive in Iran on Friday to visit sites including the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, a top Iranian official has said.
BBC News, Last Updated: Tuesday, 4 April 2006, 16:08 GMT 17:08 UK
Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Aliasghar Soltanieh, said the inspectors would mainly be looking at the Natanz site.
The UN Security Council last week gave Iran 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment or face isolation.
Tehran insists its nuclear work is peaceful and has rejected the demand.
The non-binding statement on Iran was approved unanimously by the Security Council on 29 March and came after weeks of wrangling.
The IAEA agency will report back later this month on whether Iran has complied with the demand.
'Ready to negotiate'
Iran insists it has the right to civilian nuclear technology and denies Western claims that it is seeking atomic weapons.
"Iran will not suspend its research activities in the field of enrichment. These activities will go on under the supervision of the IAEA," Mr Soltanieh said.
Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment in January, citing research purposes.
It then scrapped snap inspections of its nuclear sites in February after the issue was referred to the UN Security Council. However it has said it is continuing to co-operate with the IAEA.
Earlier, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters Iran was prepared to negotiate on the issue of large-scale enrichment, but would never abandon its right to enrich uranium.
"The enrichment of uranium... is Iran's right as defined as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Mr Mottaki said.
"For industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel, which is the next stage, we are ready for negotiations."
It is no surprise that Iran has offered negotiations at this stage, as it often does so when it is under pressure, the BBC News website's Paul Reynolds suggests.
Given Iran's refusal to give up enrichment, the offer is unlikely to have any immediate effect, our correspondent adds - but it could open up lines of negotiation for the future.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4876708.stm
Iran Tests Powerful Underwater Missile
TEHRAN, Iran, April 2, 2006
(AP)
Quote
"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines. Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed."
Iran's Gen. Ali Fadavi
(CBS/AP) Iran announced its second major new missile test in a week, saying Sunday it has successfully fired a high-speed underwater missile capable of destroying huge warships and submarines.
The Iranian-made missile has a speed of 223 miles per hour underwater, Gen. Ali Fadavi, deputy head of the Navy of the elite Revolutionary Guards, said.
He called it the fastest underwater missile in the world, but it has the same speed as the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, developed in 1995 and believed to be the world's fastest, three or four times faster than a torpedo.
It was not immediately known if the Iranian missile, which has not yet been named, was based on the Shkval.
"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines. Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed," Fadavi told state-run television.
It was not immediately clear whether the missile, which has not been named, can carry a nuclear warhead.
The missile test was conducted during the third day of large-scale military maneuvers by tens of thousands of the elite Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.
Iran on Friday test-fired the Fajr-3 missile, which can avoid radars and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. The Guards said the test was successful.
Gen. Hossein Salami said Friday the Iranian-made missile was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The maneuvers are scheduled to last a week and will involve 17,000 Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and helicopter gunships.
Last year, former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military.
The missile tests and war games coincide with increasing tension between Iran and the West over Tehran's controversial nuclear program.
The United States and its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies that, saying its program is for generating electricity.
The U.N. Security Council is demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. But an Iranian envoy said its activities are "not reversible."
Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/02/world/main1461878.shtml
Iran closer to producing nuclear weapons fuel, U.S. officials worry
BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY AND WARREN P. STROBEL
Knight Ridder Newspapers, Posted on Thu, Mar. 23, 2006
WASHINGTON - U.S. officials are concerned that Iran may be closer than they previously believed to mastering the process for producing fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Their unease stems from a recent briefing at which U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency experts reported that Iran was close to operating a test network of 164 machines, called centrifuges, that spin uranium hexafluoride gas into enriched uranium, U.S. officials and a foreign diplomat said.
Depending on its duration, the process produces low enriched uranium for power plants and highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
The report came amid a deadlock in two-week-old talks among the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - the U.N. Security Council permanent members - on how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.
The IAEA and several European nations disputed the Bush administration's charges about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, but there's wider international agreement about Iran's nuclear efforts.
Should Iran quickly overcome the numerous technical obstacles to operating the test network, known as a cascade, it could accelerate the installation of an industrial-scale plant and begin producing highly enriched uranium much sooner than currently forecast, the U.S. officials and the diplomat said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue.
Based on the IAEA data, U.S. experts have concluded that "Iran could be as little as two to three years away from having nuclear weapons, with all the necessary caveats and assumptions and extrapolations about them overcoming technical hurdles," said one U.S. official. "Admittedly, those are significant assumptions."
Publicly, the Bush administration estimates that 2011 is the soonest that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon.
"They are moving much quicker than everyone thought," said the diplomat, who didn't offer an estimate on how soon Iran might be able to produce highly enriched uranium.
He said there was evidence that Iran has moved large containers of uranium hexafluoride gas to Natanz, the main enrichment research site in central Iran, from a facility in Isfahan in preparation for starting the test network.
"I think it's fair to say that there's growing concern about what the Iranians may be up to," said a U.S. defense official.
David Albright, a former IAEA inspector who closely follows the issue, said he was skeptical that Iran could produce 25 kilograms (55 pounds) of highly enriched uranium - the quantity required for a warhead - by sometime in 2008.
Albright, the director of the independent Institute for Science and International Security, said his "worst-case scenario" was 2009, due to Iran's lack of experience in operating large numbers of centrifuges, the complexities involved and the potential for numerous problems.
Iran insists that its enrichment program is intended to make fuel for power plants, not for nuclear weapons, but it admits concealing the project for 18 years from IAEA inspectors.
Moreover, Tehran has failed to reveal to the IAEA all aspects of its program, including purchases of weapons-related nuclear know-how from a Pakistani-led smuggling ring that supplied the North Korean and Libyan weapons programs. Ayhan Evrensel, an IAEA spokesman, declined to comment for this article.
A diplomat close to the IAEA confirmed that by the end of last week, Iranian engineers had assembled all 164 centrifuges of the test cascade at Natanz as they'd planned to do. They still had to finish connecting all of the machines and then would need time to conduct tests of the piping and seals, this diplomat said by telephone from Vienna, Austria.
However, the diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the development conformed to the agency's timeline and that IAEA experts didn't view it with alarm.
Britain and France, backed by the United States, have proposed a statement in the Security Council demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment work and setting a 30-day deadline for an IAEA report on Tehran's compliance.
Russia and China, which have major financial stakes in oil-rich Iran, opposed the proposal, contending that it paved the way for the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran.
The crisis erupted in January when Iran ended a more than two-year suspension of enrichment work in defiance of international objections. The IAEA board of governors voted in February to refer the matter to the Security Council after the agency found that it couldn't confirm the peaceful nature of the program.
According to information Tehran provided to the IAEA, Iranian engineers first fed uranium hexafluoride gas into single centrifuges, followed by cascades of 10 and 20 machines.
It has informed the IAEA that it plans to begin installing the first 3,000 centrifuges of a 50,000-machine industrial-scale plant in underground halls at Natanz in the last quarter of this year.
One U.S. official said that if Iranian engineers successfully operate the 164-machine cascade as quickly as they did the smaller assemblies, they could move up the installation of the first centrifuges of the underground plant to within the next "few months."
If all went smoothly, he continued, those machines could begin operating in 2007 and produce enough highly enriched uranium for one nuclear warhead within about one year.
"The anxiety level has risen significantly," he said. "Iran is closer that we thought they were to mastering the operation of a centrifuge cascade."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14171197.htm
The cold war, the sequel part 2, now playing.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HC24Ag02.html
March 23, 2006
Russia digs in against U.N. Council action on Iran
By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Russia's foreign minister on Wednesday firmly rejected a draft U.N. Security Council statement aimed at pressuring Iran to stop enriching uranium, despite a new offer of amendments by Western powers.
The next step is likely to be bilateral contacts among ministers of the council's five veto-wielding permanent members, the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia, diplomats close to the talks said.
The five powers' U.N. ambassadors met again on Wednesday but failed to reach agreement on a draft council statement proposed by France and Britain, participants said.
Still, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in the Bahamas to meet with Caribbean community foreign ministers, said she was confident agreement would be reached on a plan for pressuring Iran into ending its enrichment activities that could produce fuel for a nuclear weapon.
"Sometimes diplomacy takes a little bit of time but we're working very hard on it," Rice told reporters. "We will come up with a vehicle, I am quite certain of that."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Beijing, "The draft includes points that effectively lay the groundwork for sanctions against Iran."
"We will hardly be able to support this version of the draft," he added, according to Moscow's Interfax news agency.
Lavrov said the draft text was "effectively aimed at removing the Iranian nuclear issue from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) agenda and referring it to the U.N. Security Council. It is wrong."
British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said earlier that amendments would be offered but only if there were a chance of success.
Russia, backed by China, wants to delete large sections of the draft statement the Security Council has been studying for nearly two weeks as a first reaction to Iran's nuclear research, which the West believes is a cover for bomb-making. Iran insists it wants only to produce electric power.
Both nations fear that involvement by the 15-member council, which can impose sanctions, could escalate and lead to punitive measures including possibly military action.
Moscow, diplomats said, opposes even the draft's request for a report to the council on Iran's compliance with the demands of the IAEA in Vienna, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. Russia wants the request to come from the IAEA board of governors, not the council, they said.
'A LOT OF WORK TO DO'
In New York, Moscow's U.N. ambassador, Andrei Denisov, said after the five met in New York that talks were continuing but "we still need some time to consult."
"There is still a lot of work to do," French U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere told reporters.
French and British diplomats say that if the impasse continues on the draft statement, which would require the unanimous approval of the 15-nation Security Council, they could switch to a resolution, which would need only a majority vote but could be vetoed by any permanent member.
A council resolution would carry more weight than a statement and such a switch in strategy would dare Russia and China to use their veto.
But a veto or an abstention from Moscow or Beijing would gravely undermine the council's message to Tehran that it must end activities that could lead to nuclear arms.
It could also obstruct, if not doom, future council efforts to ratchet up the pressure on Iran if it fails to heed the initial warning.
The United States, Britain and France have already started private talks on a follow-up resolution that would declare Iran's nuclear program to be a threat to international peace and security and warn of unspecified "measures" if it failed to shut the program down.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/3/23/worldupdates/2006-03-23T032948Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJON...
What is strontium?
Strontium (chemical symbol Sr) is a silvery metal that rapidly turns yellowish in air. Strontium is found naturally as a non-radioactive element. Strontium has 16 known isotopes. Naturally occurring strontium is found as four stable isotopes Sr-84, -86, -87, and -88. Twelve other isotopes are radioactive. Strontium-90 is the most important radioactive isotope in the environment.
Who discovered strontium?
In 1790 Adair Crawford and William Cruikshank first detected non-radioactive strontium in the mineral strontianite in Scotland. Metallic strontium was isolated in 1808 by Sir Humphry Davy.
Radioactive Sr-90, like many other radionuclides, was discovered in the 1940s in nuclear experiments connected to the development of the atomic bomb.
Where does strontium-90 come from?
Strontium-90 is a by-product of the fission of uranium and plutonium in nuclear reactors, and in nuclear weapons. Strontium-90 is found in waste from nuclear reactors. It can also contaminate reactor parts and fluids. Large amounts of Sr-90 were produced during atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s and dispersed worldwide.
What are the properties of strontium-90?
Non-radioactive strontium and its radioactive isotopes have the same physical properties. Strontium is a soft metal similar to lead. Strontium is chemically very reactive, and is only found in compounds in nature.
When freshly cut, it has a silvery luster, but rapidly reacts with air and turns yellow. Finely cut strontium will burst into flame in air. Because of these qualities, it is generally stored in kerosene.
Strontium-90 emits a beta particle with, no gamma radiation, as it decays to yttrium-90 (also radioactive). Strontium-90 has a half-life of 29.1 years. Strontium-90 behaves chemically much like calcium, and therefore tends to concentrate in the bones and teeth.
What is strontium-90 used for?
Strontium-90 is used as a radioactive tracer in medical and agricultural studies. The heat generated by strontium-90's radioactive decay can be converted to electricity for long-lived, light-weight power supplies. These are often used in remote locations, such as in navigational beacons, weather stations, and space vehicles. Strontium-90 is also used in electron tubes, as a radiation source in industrial thickness gauges, and for the treatment of eye diseases. Controlled amounts of strontium-90 have been used as a treatment for bone cancer.
Exposure to Strontium-90
How does strontium-90 get into the environment?
Strontium-90 was widely dispersed in the 1950s and 1960s in fall out from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. It has been slowly decaying since then so that current levels from these tests are very low.
Strontium-90 is also found in waste from nuclear reactors. It is considered one of the more hazardous constituents of nuclear wastes. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant also introduced a large amount of Sr-90 into the environment. A large part of the Sr-90 was deposited in the Soviet Republics. The rest was dispersed as fallout over Northern Europe and worldwide. No significant amount of stronium-90 reached the U.S.
How does strontium-90 change in the environment?
As strontium-90 decays, it releases radiation and forms yttrium-90 (Y-90), which in turn decays to stable zirconium. The half-life of Sr-90 is 29.1 years, and that of Yttrium-90 is 64 hours. Sr-90 emits moderate energy beta particles, and Y-90 emits very strong (energetic) beta particles. Strontium-90 can form many chemical compounds, including halides, oxides, and sulfides, and moves easily through the environment.
How do people come in contact with strontium-90?
Everyone is exposed to small amounts of strontium-90, since it is widely dispersed in the environment and the food chain. Dietary intake of Sr-90, however, has steadily fallen over the last 30 years with the suspension of nuclear weapons testing. People who live near or work in nuclear facilities may have increased exposure to Sr-90. The greatest concern would be the exposures from an accident at a nuclear reactor, or an accident involving high-level wastes.
How does strontium-90 get into the body?
People may inhale trace amounts of strontium-90 as a contaminant in dust. But, swallowing Sr-90 with food or water is the primary pathway of intake.
What does strontium-90 do once it gets into the body?
When people ingest Sr-90, about 70-80% of it passes through the body. Virtually all of the remaining 20-30% that is absorbed is deposited in the bone. About 1% is distributed among the blood volume, extracellular fluid, soft tissue, and surface of the bone, where it may stay and decay or be excreted.
Health Effects of Strontium-90
How can strontium-90 affect people's health?
Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, and tends to deposit in bone and blood-forming tissue (bone marrow). Thus, strontium-90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to Sr-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia.
Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90. The risk depends on the concentration of Sr-90 in the environment, and on the exposure conditions.
Is there a medical test to determine exposure to strontium-90?
The most common test for exposure to strontium-90 is a bioassay, usually by urinalysis. As with most cases of internal contamination, the sooner the test is taken after ingesting or inhaling the contaminant, the more accurate the results will be. Most major medical centers should be capable of performing this test.
Protecting People from Strontium-90
What can I do to protect myself and my family from strontium-90?
Strontium-90 dispersed in the environment, like that from atmospheric weapons testing, is almost impossible to avoid. You may also be exposed to tiny amounts from nuclear power reactors and certain government facilities. The more serious risk to you (though it is unlikely), is that you may unwittingly encounter an industrial instrument containing a Sr-90 radiation source. This is more likely if you work in specific industries:
scrap metal sorting, sales and brokerage
metal melting and casting
municipal landfill operations.
Orphan Sources Initiative
How do I know strontium if I'm near strontium-90?
Although you are exposed to tiny amounts of strontium-90 from past accidents and weapons testing, you cannot sense its presence. You need specialized equipment to detect Sr-90.
What is EPA doing about strontium-90?
EPA protects people and the environment from Sr-90 by establishing standards for the clean-up of contaminated sites, by setting limits on the amount of Sr-90 (and other radionuclides) that may be released to the air, and by setting limits on the amount of strontium-90 (and other radionuclides) that may be present in public drinking water.
EPA uses its authority under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (commonly known as "Superfund") to set standards for the clean-up of existing contaminated sites. Cleanups must meet all environmental requirements that are relevant or applicable, including state regulations and regulations issued in connection with other federal environmental laws.
When these types of regulations are unavailable, or not protective enough, EPA sets site-specific cleanup levels. Site-specific standards limit the chance of developing cancer because of exposure to a site-related carcinogen (such as strontium-90) to between one in 10,000 and one in 1,000,000.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.htm
AP New York
High levels of strontium-90 found in Indian Point groundwater
By JIM FITZGERALD
Associated Press Writer
March 21, 2006, 7:44 PM EST
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- High levels of radioactive strontium-90 _ nearly three times the amount permitted in drinking water _ were found in groundwater near the Hudson River beneath the Indian Point nuclear power plants, the plants' owner said Tuesday.
The groundwater does not reach any drinking supplies, and although the strontium is believed to have reached the Hudson it would be safely diluted in the river, said Jim Steets, spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast.
The strontium _ which can cause cancer in high doses _ was found in a well dug as part of an ongoing search for the source of a leak of radioactive water at Indian Point, which is in Buchanan, 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan. Entergy's finding was matched by tests conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the same sample, Steets said. It was the first confirmed finding of the isotope at levels well above the normal background level.
The same sample also yielded tritium, another potential carcinogen, at levels well above the drinking water standard. High levels of tritium had been found earlier in another well, and the NRC announced Monday that it would investigate accidental releases of tritium at Indian Point and other nuclear plants.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Tuesday that the commission still believes that radioactivity in the water _ given that it is not drinking water _ is well below the level that would "pose a risk to public health and safety."
The sample from the well also found higher-than-normal levels of a third isotope, nickel-63, but those levels were under the drinking water standard, Steets said.
The test well, inside a turbine building, is among nine recently dug in an attempt to pinpoint the leak that is contaminating the groundwater. Contaminated water first was found in August on the outside of a spent-fuel pool for the Indian Point 2 reactor, but no leak has been found on the inside of the pool.
The new findings add to the uncertainty, Steets said.
"When we first got these findings we were scratching our heads because it does raise questions about what the source (of the leak) really is," Steets said.
For example, he said, the presence of nickel might point to the spent-fuel pool for Indian Point 1 rather than Indian Point 2 because those fuel assemblies had more steel and nickel-63 is formed in connection with steel.
"It's still all speculation," he added. "This is just one data point in a long process."
Entergy said water samples were taken at four depths in the well. Strontium levels, in picocuries per liter, were 2.4, 3.86, 18.2, and 22.7. The drinking water limit is 8.
Tritium, which becomes dangerous only at much higher concentrations than strontium, was found at 12,800, 14,700, 28,000 and 13,300 picocuries per liter. The drinking water limit is 20,00
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--indianpoint0321mar21,0,4413030.story?coll=n...
Nuclear proliferation video... http://parabri.100free.com/Green%20peace%20video.htm
Nuclear testing links... http://parabri.100free.com/Why.htm
Trinity Test Nuclear Explosions New Mexico, July 16, 1945 http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm126.html
Trinity Atomic Website http://www.abomb1.org/index.html
Trinity--the first nuclear explosion
The Atomic Age dawned at 5:29:45am on July 16, 1945, at Trinity Site in New Mexico, U.S.A. The first atomic explosion came less than 50 years after the discovery of radioactivity in 1896 and brought many threads of physics, technology and politics to a dramatic culmination. The man-made thunder that echoed off the Oscuro Mountains continues to reverbrate through the modern world.
The purpose of Trinity Atomic Web Site is to tell the story of nuclear weapons through historical documents, photos, and videos. In the spirit of Project Gutenberg, the intent is to create an online archive from the large body of U.S. government information about nuclear weapons. For the most part the original documents will be allowed to speak for themselves, with an occasional thread of narrative or clarification if it is helpful.
A Guide to Nuclear Weapons http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/
North Korea Touts First-Strike Capability
Associated Press, By JAE-SOON CHANG, 03.21.2006, 02:42 PM
North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat.
"As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."
The United States urged North Korea to return to international nuclear negotiations instead of making inflammatory statements. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States has no plans to invade or attack North Korea.
Last week, the communist country warned that it had the right to launch a pre-emptive strike, saying it would strengthen its war footing before joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises scheduled for this weekend.
The North's spokesman said it would be a "wise" step for the United States to cooperate on nuclear issues with North Korea in the same way it does with India.
Earlier this month, President Bush signed an accord in India that would open some of its atomic reactors to international inspections in exchange for U.S. nuclear know-how and atomic fuel.
The accord was reached even though New Delhi has not signed the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty and condemned the United States for giving India "preferential" treatment.
"If the U.S. is truly interested in finding a realistic way of resolving the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, it would be wise for it to come out on the path of nuclear cooperation with us," the North Korean spokesman said.
The North's announcement that it has a nuclear arsenal risked escalating tensions in the prolonged standoff over its program and threatened the prospect of resuming six-nation talks on the dispute.
"We have built nuclear weapons for no other purpose than to counter U.S. nuclear threats," the Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
It is rare for North Korea to mention its nuclear capabilities in such an explicit manner. The communist state usually refers to its "nuclear deterrent force."
North Korea first declared last year that it has nuclear weapons, although the claim could not be confirmed independently. Experts believe the North has extracted enough plutonium from its main nuclear reactor for at least a half-dozen weapons.
Six-nation talks have been stalled since November over a dispute surrounding financial restrictions the United States imposed on North Korea for its alleged currency counterfeiting and money laundering. Those talks involve the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.
Pyongyang says it will not return to the negotiating table unless the restrictions are lifted. But Washington demands that the North come to the talks without preconditions, saying the two issues are separate.
The North's spokesman said his country had shown "maximum flexibility" in trying to resolve the financial dispute, proposing possible solutions during a meeting in New York earlier this month. The meeting produced no breakthrough.
"The Bush administration talks about six-party talks, but it actually is paying no attention to the talks," the spokesman said, according to KCNA.
McCormack said South Korea's new nuclear envoy, Chun Young-woo, will meet later this week with top State Department officials. No date has been set for a resumption of the nuclear talks, McCormack said.
The North Korean spokesman also disputed last week's U.S. national security report that, among other things, said North Korea posed a serious nuclear proliferation challenge.
"In a word, it is a robbery-like declaration of war," the spokesman said. "Through this document, the Bush administration declared to the world that it is a group of war fanatics."
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/03/21/ap2611114.html
North Korea: Ready For Pre-emptive Strike
March 21, 2006 21 09 GMT
Stratfor.com
North Korea is ready to launch a pre-emptive military strike and will continue to resist U.S. pressure to scrap its nuclear weapons, state media reported March 21. North Korea sees upcoming joint U.S-South Korean military drills as preparation for a U.S.-led invasion, and has said that if necessary, the Korean People's Army has the right to launch a pre-emptive strike.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=263742
Security Council Is Stalled Over Iran's Nuclear Program
By WARREN HOGE
New York Times, March 22, 2006
UNITED NATIONS, March 21 — After nearly two weeks of haggling, a deadlocked Security Council put off full consideration of Iran's nuclear program on Tuesday, amid indications that Iran was close to taking a major step in its efforts to enrich uranium.
Britain and France had promoted a statement calling on Iran to abandon its uranium activities, which the West believes is part of a nuclear weapons program. With American support, Britain and France want a two-week deadline with threats of possible punishment, but have met resistance from China and Russia.
The Europeans said Tuesday that they would consult on possible revisions that could draw the unanimous support needed for the statement from all 15 Security Council members. The postponement followed a four-hour meeting on Monday of senior Foreign Ministry officials of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.
"The impact on the negotiations which we are trying to do here was not as positive as we would have wished," said Emyr Jones Parry, the British ambassador. "So we're having to maintain the momentum. That is the basis problem."
The impasse generated frustration among European and American negotiators, who said within the last week that the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna had briefed officials on Iran's uranium activities at its Natanz complex.
Diplomats from different countries, who declined to be identified because they were discussing sensitive classified information, said Iran appeared on the verge of assembling 164 centrifuges, the number needed to form a "cascade" mechanism that could enrich uranium for nuclear energy or, eventually, bombs.
In effect, they said the 164 centrifuges would significantly increase Iran's ability to make weapons, in defiance of demands by the United States, Britain, France, Germany and the United States that it cease its uranium activities immediately.
"What this means is that time is not on our side," a European diplomat said. "It means that while we are negotiating, Iran is not wasting its time."
Various diplomats also expressed a sense of urgency.
France's ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sablière, said: "It seems to me we will need some time, a few days, I suppose. But we don't have much time. I guess that we will have to come to the end of discussion very soon. But I cannot tell you exactly when."
A long delay in progress could persuade the Western nations to abandon the plan for a statement and push instead toward a resolution, a much stronger action, but one that would require a vote. Resolutions need nine votes to pass but can be defeated by a veto, which China and Russia, as permanent members, each have the power to cast.
R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, turned aside such speculation, saying in a telephone interview from Washington that he had heard strong sentiment for a statement at the Monday meeting, at which he represented the United States.
"We believe that the members of the Security Council all have an interest in issuing this presidential statement, because the most important step we can now take is to send a common, united, clear message to Iran — that is, suspend your nuclear program and return to negotiations," he said. "It may take some time to achieve the final wording, but we believe that goal is attainable."
The step that the Council is trying to agree on is a relatively mild one, a nonbinding statement that would list Tehran's failures to comply with demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, and urge Iran to resume the suspension of its uranium enrichment.
China, while backing Russia, has proven more conciliatory in the talks, introducing a revised draft asking the director general of the nuclear agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, to report on Iran's program to his agency and the Council.
The original text, first circulated two weeks ago, called for sending the progress report to just the Council. China and Russia feared that such a move would diminish the role of the agency and put the matter in the hands of the Council, which has the power to sanction Tehran. Beijing and Moscow oppose sanctions.
China and Russia are also against a provision asking Dr. ElBaradei to submit his report in two weeks. China's ambassador, Wang Guangya, has recommended a four- to six-week time frame. Andrei Denisov, the Russian ambassador, has suggested a June deadline.
Mr. Wang said Tuesday that senior officials at the nuclear agency had told Chinese diplomats that two weeks afforded too little time. "To give them 14 days is to ask them not to do it," he said. He said the Russians were troubled by the references to Iran's activities being a threat to international peace and stability, words that he said could become a pretext for imposing sanctions. Asked whether Beijing shared this concern, he said, "I believe that the Russian concern has its logic."
The Russians also object to listing the demands on Tehran, arguing that they are included in the International Atomic Energy Agency resolution. Among the demands are that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and put into effect the "additional protocol" to the country's nuclear agreement, which gives inspectors the right to ask for exceptional access to plants.
Mr. Wang said China favored a "brief political statement" that would reinforce the authority of the nuclear agency, call on the Iranians to cooperate and put "some pressure" on them to do so.
Mr. de la Sablière, the French ambassador, voiced doubt that much of the specific language could be dropped. "We are not in favor of a too general statement," he said. "We want a precise and strong message."
Mr. Jones Parry, the British ambassador, also expressed misgivings at the idea of wholesale changes. "What France and Britain both feel is that if this text is to be amended further, it should be amended in order to come to an agreed conclusion," he said. "And if there is no prospect of an agreed conclusion, we won't be amending the text."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/international/middleeast/22iran.html?_r=1&oref=login
I hesitated to post Reuters take on this because they are such liars, so take it for what it's worth.
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2006-03-21T192053Z_01_N2...
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council ran into new obstacles on Tuesday in trying to issue a statement on reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions after Russia insisted on deleting key parts of the text.
A closed-door meeting among all 15 council members scheduled for Tuesday was delayed until later in the week while diplomats talk in small groups, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. Members last week thought a deal was close.
"The impact on the negotiations which we are trying to do here was not as positive as we would have wished," British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said. "That is the basic problem."
Council members have mulled a reaction to Iran's nuclear program, which the West believes is a cover for bomb making, since receiving a dossier from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on March 8.
Russia, supported by China, has been wary of action by the Security Council, which can impose sanctions, fearing threats might escalate and prompt Iran to cut all contact with the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. On the statement, Russia wants about half the text deleted, China said.
A statement requires agreement from all 15 Security Council members while a resolution needs nine votes in favor and no veto from any of the permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.
The Western powers could turn the statement, drafted by France and Britain, into a resolution and dare Russia and China to take what would be a serious step and veto a text on Iran.
Asked about a resolution, Britain's Jones Parry said everything was on the table "if it produces a satisfactory outcome, sends the right message to the government in Tehran."
"I think what France and I both feel is that if this text is to be amended further, it should be amended in order to come to an agreed conclusion. And if there is no prospect of an agreed conclusion we won't be amending the text," Jones Parry said.
Moscow would like to cut a provision that weapons of mass destruction constitute "a threat to international peace and security" because it could lead to a action under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which makes demands mandatory and can lead to sanctions or even military action, China said.
"The Russian argument is that it has the implication of leading to Chapter 7 actions," China's U.N. ambassador Wang Guangya said
"I believe that the Russian concern has its logic," Wang said when asked if China agreed.
Russia also wants a brief statement that does not reiterate all demands from the IAEA's 35-nation board, such as suspending all uranium enrichment activities. Instead it wants only to point to the number of the IAEA resolution, Wang said.
NEXT STEPS?
Senior officials from the five permanent council members and Germany met on Monday to discuss future action but came to no agreement, diplomats said.
Before the meeting, Britain had floated the possibility of tougher Security Council measures against Tehran in exchange for a package of incentives, which had been offered by the Europeans earlier in talks that collapsed, diplomats said.
Russia, Wang said, informally floated its own proposals -- talks with Iran, the IAEA's director general Mohamed ElBaradei and the six countries, similar to talks on North Korea, which are not part of Security Council measures.
But he said neither the British proposals nor the Russian ones were discussed at the meeting.
"They (the Russians) argued for two tracks. "On one hand you put pressure, on the other hand show a way out of this," Wang said without elaborating.
Under a November 2004 agreement with Britain, France and Germany, negotiators for the European Union, Iran agreed to freeze any uranium conversion, enrichment and reprocessing activities in return for economic and political rewards.
That deal broke down last year and Iran restarted uranium conversion in August.
In Iran, a split developing over country's hard-line nuclear stance
By Michael Slackman The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006
TEHRAN Just weeks ago, the Iranian government's combative approach toward building a nuclear program produced rare public displays of unity here. But while the top leaders remain resolute in their course, cracks are opening both inside and outside the circles of power over the issue.
Some people in powerful positions have begun to insist that the confrontational tactics of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are backfiring, making it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear program.
This week, the UN Security Council is taking up Iran's nuclear program. That referral, and, perhaps more important, Iran's inability so far to win Russia's unequivocal support for its plans, have empowered critics of Ahmadinejad, according to political analysts with close ties to the government.
One senior Iranian official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitive nature of the issue, said: "I tell you, if what they were doing was working, we would say, 'Good.'" But, he added, "For 27 years after the revolution, America wanted to get Iran to the Security Council and America failed. In less than six months, Ahmadinejad did that."
One month ago, this same official said that those who thought the hard-line approach was a bad choice were staying silent because it appeared to be succeeding.
As usual in Iran, there are mixed signals, and the government does not always speak with the same voice. On Tuesday, both Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted in public speeches that their country would never back down. At the same time, Iranian negotiators arrived in Moscow to resume talks - at Iran's request - just days after Iran had rejected a Russian proposal to resolve the standoff.
Average Iranians seem less uniformly confident at the prospect of being hit with UN sanctions. Some people have begun to joke about the catchphrase of the government - flippantly saying, "nuclear energy is our irrefutable right."
Reformers have also begun to speak out. And people with close ties to the government said high-ranking clerics have begun to give critical assessments of Iran's position to Khamenei, which the political elite sees as a seismic jolt.
"There has been no sign that they will back down," said Ahmad Zeidabady, a political analyst and journalist. "At least, Mr. Khamenei has said nothing that we can interpret" as signaling "change in the policies." But, he said, "There is more criticism as it is becoming more clear that this policy is not working, especially by those who were in the previous negotiating team."
There are also signs that negotiators are starting to back away, however slightly, from a bare-knuckle strategy and that those who had initially opposed the president's style are beginning to feel vindicated and are starting to speak up.
Former President Muhammad Khatami recently publicly criticized the aggressive approach and called for a return to his government's strategy of confidence building with the West.
"The previous team now feels they were vindicated," said Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University who is close to many members of the government. "The new team feels they have to justify their actions."
Khamenei, who has the final say, on Tuesday issued a strong defense of Iran's position.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue, which is the demand of the Iranian people, as breaking the country's independence that will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," he said. "Peaceful use of nuclear technology is a must and is necessary for scientific growth in all fields. Any kind of retreat will bring a series of pressures and retreats. So, this is an irreversible path and our foreign diplomacy should defend this right courageously."
In a speech in the city of Goran, Ahmadinejad called on the people to "be angry" at the pressure being put on Iran.
"Listen well," the president said to a crowd chanting "die" as they punched the air with their fists. "A nuclear program is our irrefutable right."
When Ahmadinejad took office, he embraced a decision already made by the top leadership to move toward confrontation with the West about the nuclear program. From the sidelines, Ahmadinejad's opponents remained largely silent as his political capital grew. Iran's ability to begin uranium enrichment in and to remove the seals at a nuclear facility without any immediate consequences was initially seen as a validation of the get-tough approach.
But one political scientist who speaks regularly with members of the Foreign Ministry said that Iran had hinged much of its strategy on winning Russia's support.
The political scientist, who asked not to be identified so as not to compromise his relationship with people in the government, said that some negotiators believed that by being hostile to the West, they would be able to entice Moscow into making Tehran its stronghold in the Middle East. "They thought the turn east was the way forward," the person said. "That was a belief and a vision."
The person added: "They thought, 99 percent, Russia would seize the opportunity and back the Iranian leaders."
The route forward remains unclear as Iran tries to regain a sense of momentum.
There is a consensus here that Iran has many cards to play - from its influence with the Shiites in Iraq to its closer ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the prospect of using oil as a weapon.
Hadian said he believed that for Iran to fundamentally change course, its situation will first have to grow a lot worse.
"There are concerns to keep the situation calm," Zeidabady said.
"We have received orders not even to have headlines saying the case has been sent to the Security Council."
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting for this article.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/15/news/iran.php
So that is where Armageddon will begin. Right in one of the two one mile wide channels. If Iran were to launch terrorist attacks on tankers that is the only logical spot. Once that happens, we don't want that to happen.
United States Naval Support Activity, Bahrain http://www.nsa.bahrain.navy.mil/
The Kingdom of Bahrain, or Bahrain (formerly spelled Bahrein), is a borderless island nation in the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia lies to the west and is connected to Bahrain by the King Fahd Causeway, and Qatar is to the south across the Persian Gulf. The Qatar–Bahrain Friendship Bridge will link Bahrain to Qatar.
Bahrain is the fastest growing economy in the Arab world in January 2006. Petroleum production and processing account for about 60% of export receipts, 60% of government revenues, and 30% of GDP. Bahrain is home to numerous multinational firms with business in the Persian Gulf. A large share of exports consists of petroleum products made from imported crude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain
Bahrain - CIA Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ba.html
5th Fleet homeport at Manama [Juffair], Bahrain [Al Manamah]
26°14'10"N 50°34'59"E
It was fortunate for the Navy that the Bahrainis recognized years ago that Juffair would make a good place for future development. The capital, Manama, lies on a small peninsula at the northeast corner of Bahrain’s principal island, and the downtown hub hugs the shoreline. The port and Navy base are southeast of downtown, distant from the rest of the island. The U.S. Navy base at Juffair, about 5 miles southeast of Manama, provides onshore offices for the Navy's 5th Fleet, which has aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships stationed in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/manama.htm
5th Fleet Mission http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Pages/Mission%20page.htm
Sea Lanes of Communication. Coalition maritime forces operate under international maritime conventions to ensure security and safety in international waters so that all commercial shipping can operate freely while transiting the region.
Area of Responsibility http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Pages/AOR%20page.htm
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/ Commander, 5th Fleet's area of responsibility encompasses about 7.5 million square miles and includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean. This expanse, comprised of 27 countries, includes three critical chokepoints at the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab al Mandeb at the southern tip of Yemen.
U.S. Fifth Fleet (C5F), an Echelon III command, supports all naval operations in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). It encompasses about 7.5 million square miles and includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, and parts of the Indian Ocean. This expanse, comprised of 25 countries, includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.
The usual force of 20-plus ships, with about 1,000 people ashore and 15,000 afloat, consists of a Carrier Battle Group, Amphibious Ready Group, combat aircraft, and other support units and ships. Fifth Fleet exemplifies the Department of the Navy's strategic concept "Forward... From the sea," by providing the ability to respond immediately to any emerging crisis from peace-keeping and humanitarian missions to asserting necessary force in regional conflicts.
The U.S. FIFTH Fleet was reestablished July 1, 1995 in the Central Command area of responsibility as a second responsibility of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command. Vice Admiral Scott Redd became the fifth Commander of FIFTH Fleet followed by Vice Admiral Thomas B. Fargo in June 1996. Vice Admiral Charles W. Moore, Jr. assumed command of FIFTH Fleet on July 27, 1998.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/c5f.htm
The Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean, has been a strategic focus in world affairs for thousands of years. In the last few decades some 25% of the worlds oil production has passed through it. This web site is about the islands and the coastal regions on either side of the strait. http://www.dataxinfo.com/index.htm
Strait of Hormuz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_of_Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow, strategically important stretch of ocean between the Gulf of Oman in the southeast and the Persian Gulf in the southwest. On the north coast is Iran (Persia) and on the south coast is the United Arab Emirates and an exclave of Oman.
The strait at its narrowest is 21 miles wide [1], having two 1 mile wide channels for marine traffic separated by a 2 mile wide buffer zone [2], and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum exporting Persian Gulf States.
Straight of Hormuz - Satellite View
Nuclear energy, in vogue again
08.3.06 | 09:58 By Joel Bainerman
After years in the doldrums, nuclear energy is back, and in a big way.
Uranium is named after the planet Uranus. It is found in the same quantities as tin, zinc and molybdenum. It exists in most rocks, but granite is relatively rich in the element, with an average of 4 parts per million.
Uranium, the heaviest naturally occurring element known to man, occurs in slightly differing forms. These different forms are called isotopes. They differ from one another in the number of neutrons in their nuclei.
Of all the isotopes of uranium, U-235 is the most important: it can readily be split in a process called "nuclear fission". As the atom splits, it emits large amounts of energy.
Uranium is used mainly to power nuclear power plants. A study by Dustin Garrow of the consulting firm, International Nuclear, found that today, there are 439 such reactors in 31 countries generating about 364.7 gigawatts of power - a gigawatt equals 1 billion watts. That is 17% of the world' power supply.
Another twenty-six new nuclear plants are currently under construction in 11 countries.
Clean, lean and thrifty on space
Since 1984, reactor requirements have exceeded mine production. Western world uranium fuel consumption has increased from 56 million pounds per year in 1980, to about 145 million pounds in 2000. This is set to rise to 156 million pounds by 2010 and 200 million pounds by 2020.
Because nuclear power plants do not burn fuel, they do not emit combustion by-products. By substituting for other fuels in electricity production, nuclear energy has significantly reduced U.S. and global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the chief greenhouse gas.
Worldwide, nuclear power plants reduced the world?s emissions of CO2 by about 500 million metric tons of carbon during 2000, the latest year for which data is available. In many countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, nuclear energy helped reduce - that is, mitigate - the increase of carbon emissions per capita.
Considering the current pressure on world hydrocarbon supplies, many voices in the energy industry are touting nuclear energy as the best alternative energy source. It can create the enormous amounts of energy that the world wants in a relatively clean manner, at a very cost-effective price, they argue.
The advantages of nuclear energy lie in its efficiency: the average electricity production cost in 2003 for nuclear energy was 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, for coal-fired plants 1.80 cents, for oil 5.53 cents, and for gas 5.77 cents. The energy in one uranium fuel pellet - the size of the tip of your little finger - is the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil.
Also, because nuclear power plants produce a large amount of electricity in a relatively small space, they require significantly less land for siting and operation than all other energy sources.
Used fuel as a resource
For instance, solar and wind farms must occupy substantially more land, and must be sited in geographically unpopulated areas far from energy demand. To build the equivalent of a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant, a solar park would have to be larger than 35,000 acres, and a wind farm would have to be 150,000 acres or larger.
Also, uranium is a concentrated, low-volume fuel source requiring few incursions into the land for extraction or transport.
While the removal of nuclear waste is still an issue in which further research will help nuclear plants better deal with the issue, the fact is, the nuclear energy industry is the only industry established since the industrial revolution that has managed and accounted for all of its waste, preventing adverse impacts to the environment.
However even nuclear waste may prove to be a strong asset of the nuclear industry as used nuclear fuel is a resource, which will retain 90% of its energy after decades.
Despite the media coverage that the "threat of nuclear energy" has received in the past, the number of people killed or seriously injured as the result of nuclear power plant operations in the past 50 years is minimal and that the plants' environmental impact is negligible.
It should be noted that hundreds are killed, injured, and subjected to serious health hazards every year in the course of mineral fuel mining and transport, not to speak of the detrimental environmental impact of fossil fuel combustion. Used nuclear fuel cannot explode and does not burn.
Even when new, nuclear fuel is too weak to explode. Uranium mined from the ground is less than 1 percent fissionable and must be enriched to 4 percent in order to be used in a nuclear reactor.
Joel Bainerman is the publisher of The Other Side, a multi-lingual, alternative newsmagazine: www.theotherside.org.uk
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ArticleContent.jhtml?itemNo=691746
Dubi
My deep appreciation and thanks for your kind wishes,
Serious. Nowadays, as opposed to the distant past, we
hardly rely on miracles only. In fact see your own post
# 37 to see what i mean, especially the first part of it.
Sweet dreams,
Dubi
May you & your family be healthy & safe, Dubi!
It's 2:20 a.m. here. Gotta catch a few hours before I wake my boys for school. G'nite from SoCal!
I share your viewpoints, Serious.
Anti missile is perhaps only the
last line of some defense, more
or less an aspirin treatment for
cancer.
Regards,
Dubi
Dubi, I pray it never comes to that. To date, anti-missile technology hasn't proven that effective. Better to stop missiles from being launched. Best to deny the enemy the capability.
Arrow capable of intercepting 'any Iranian missile'
By YAAKOV KATZ
Israel's Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile system is capable of intercepting and destroying any Iranian missiles, even were they to carry nuclear warheads, a high-ranking IDF officer told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
While Iran is Israel's most serious strategic and existential threat, the country, he said confidently, was sufficiently protected by the Arrow, which plays a major role in maintaining Israel's protective envelope.
"We will shoot all of [Iran's missiles] down," he told the Post. "The Arrow knows how to intercept the Shihab missile."
Just last year that wasn't the case.
Appearing before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Brig.-Gen. Ilan Bitton - head of Israel's Air Defense Forces - said that, while the Arrow was highly effective against the Scud missiles that make up most of Syria's arsenal, it "needed improvement" to face the challenges posed by Iran's Shihab-3.
Improvements were recently made to the Arrow, the officer said, explaining the new confidence, and it was now able to detect even a missile carrying a split warhead and armed with decoys meant to fool the anti-missile system.
Asked about the danger of the Arrow taking out a non-conventional or nuclear missile over Israel, the officer said that the incoming missile would be destroyed at such a high altitude that it would disperse and destroy its payload without causing any casualties.
"There is constant pressure to always stay a step ahead of our adversaries," the officer said. "They developed decoys on their missiles and we developed ways to detect the decoys and to be able to accurately strike the incoming threat."
The Arrow 2 was last tested in December and succeeded in intercepting an incoming rocket simulating an Iranian Shihab at an altitude higher than ever before tested in the previous 13 Arrow launches. While the Arrow was Israel's first line of defense against an Iranian-launched missile, air force Patriot batteries - known for their action during the first Gulf War - also followed incoming missiles and served as the country's back-up interception system.
Israel has at least two operational Arrow batteries, with reportedly hundreds of missiles for each battery. One is stationed at Palmahim to protect Tel Aviv and the other is at Ein Shemer near Hadera in the north.
The Iranian threat, the officer said, was not only felt by Israel but also prompted European countries that fall within the Shihab's long range to begin development of or negotiations to purchase anti-missile defense systems similar to the Arrow. Turkey was recently mentioned in the media as interested in purchasing the Arrow missile defense system in an effort to improve its aerial defense in light of Iran's procurement of the deadly Shihab.
"Europe has noticed the threat and is becoming a bigger player in the development of active [missile] defense systems," the officer said. "They are busy developing, researching and waking up."
Israel, the officer said, was constantly improving its capabilities in the face of the growing threats from its Arab neighbors. "The threats from the other side have become deadlier," the officer said. "But we have also been in the process of development and updating so we can always be a step ahead of them."
The Arrow project began over 12 years ago to address the threat posed by relatively crude Scud missiles, like the ones Iraq fired into Israel during the Gulf War. But as the project developed, the defense establishment was determined not to focus on past wars but to look ahead to future threats, including faster rockets launched from farther away, possibly with multiple warheads. Nearly $2.5 billion has already been invested in the missile defense system, with two-thirds of the funding coming from the US Missile Defense Agency.
But while Israel was protected from the Shihab by the Arrow, cities were left vulnerable and unprotected from Katyusha rockets - several thousand of which are in the hands of Hizbullah in Southern Lebanon - and Palestinian-developed Kassam rockets. While the technology to intercept and destroy these low-tech rockets was in existence, the officer claimed that the funding to develop systems to do so was not. The Arrow is irrelevant as regards missiles with a range of less than 60-70 km.
"There are constant efforts to develop a system," the officer said. "There will be a solution one day, since the technology exists and the problem is the financing."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1139395526470&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%....
Dubi
Iran said to step up plans for Shahab missiles
06 Mar 2006 14:27:43 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Louis Charbonneau
BERLIN, March 6 (Reuters) - As Iran pursues a nuclear programme the West fears is aimed at producing bombs, Tehran also appears to be stepping up development of missiles capable of carrying atomic warheads, diplomats citing intelligence say.
According to an intelligence report given to Reuters by a non-U.S. diplomat, a covert Iranian programme run by people closely linked to Iran's military includes plans to arm its Shahab-3 missiles, which experts believe have a maximum range of around 2,000 km (1,240 miles), with nuclear warheads.
The report, which could not be independently confirmed, surfaced as the United States and its allies seek to highlight the potential security dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran.
The report said it was code-named Project 111 and that the "aim is arming Shahab-3 missiles with nuclear warheads".
An Iranian official, who asked not to be named, denied the charge.
The assessment that Iran has nuclear ambitions for the Shahab-3 is shared by the European Union, Washington and Israel, said an EU diplomat who asked not to be named.
Tehran says it only wants nuclear power stations, not bombs. After three years of inquiries, U.N. inspectors have been unable to verify that Tehran's nuclear programme is purely peaceful.
An Iranian exile who has reported accurately on Tehran's nuclear programme in the past said Iran had significantly increased production of Shahab-3 missiles.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors met in Vienna on Monday to consider the latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear programme. It will be sent to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Iran.
Project 111 was first mentioned last month in a report by the Washington Post, which described it as "a nuclear research effort that includes work on missile development". The Post said U.S. officials believe it is the successor of Project 110, which they believe is the military arm of Iran's atomic programme.
GERMANY WARNS COMPANIES
German intelligence officials believe Iran has stepped up covert efforts to procure missile technology, said a German government official, who asked not to be named.
The intelligence officials are sending "early-warning letters" to German firms, urging them to be alert for Iranian agents hunting for missile technology, he said.
German authorities have detained several Germans and at least one foreigner as part of a series of investigations of suspected attempts to purchase missile and other arms technology in Germany on behalf of Iranian intelligence, the official said.
Iran has repeatedly warned it would not hesitate to deploy the Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach Israel and U.S. military bases in the Gulf, if it comes under attack.
Material recovered by U.S. intelligence from a stolen laptop computer also suggests Iranian missile experts have been trying to develop a missile re-entry vehicle capable of carrying a relatively small nuclear warhead, EU diplomats have said.
But David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of a U.S.-based think-tank, cautioned that however credible, all this intelligence is based on assessments, not certainty.
"I don't think any of the available intelligence represents a smoking gun," Albright said.
His Institute for Science and International Security estimates that Iran could not produce a bomb before 2009.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who heads a think-tank in Washington, told Reuters Tehran had sharply accelerated production of Shahab-3 missiles to around 90 a year from 15-20.
Jafarzadeh, formerly a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), listed by Washington as a terrorist organisation, revealed the existence of Iran's secret uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and other sites in August 2002.
North Korea has also been key to Iran's missile development.
Last month a German diplomat, citing his country's intelligence, confirmed a German newspaper report from December that said Iran had purchased 18 disassembled BM-25 mobile missiles with a range of around 2,500 km from North Korea.
The NCRI said at a news conference in London on Monday that Iran was also working on developing so-called Ghadr missiles, with a range of up to 3,000 km. Unlike the Shahab, which is based on North Korean Nodong missile technology, the Ghadr missile is based neither on North Korean or Russian designs.
No comment from Iran was immediately available. (Additional reporting by Gideon Long in London and Parisa Hafezi in Vienna)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06200254.htm
Israel Conducts Activities Against Iran in N. Iraq
Zaman Daily News, zaman.com, First Turkish Paper Online
By Foreign News Desk, Istanbul
Published: Monday, March 06, 2006
Israel is said to be conducting intelligence gathering activities in Northern Iraq against Iran.
British newspaper, The Sunday Times wrote, special Israeli forces are operating inside Iran in an urgent mission to locate the country's secret uranium enrichment sites.
"We found several suspected sites last year but there must be more," an Israeli intelligence source said.
Israel is operating from a base in northern Iraq, guarded by Israeli soldiers with the approval of the Americans, according to Israeli sources.
‘NATO may help US air strikes on Iran'
The Sunday Times claimed that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) may participate in US air strikes on Iran.
Maj. Gen. Axel Tuttelmann's, head of the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, commented that the military alliance could play a supporting role if America launches air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, The Sunday Times reported. "America and Israel have warned that they will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Both countries have plans of lastly resorting to air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities."
US officials are in contact with NATO member countries, reported the paper, reminding that Porter Goss, the CIA Director, visited NATO country Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan late last year to ask for political, logistical and intelligence support in the event of air strikes.
The British newspaper also quoted Dan Goure, a Pentagon adviser, as saying, "NATO would be likely to operate air defenses in Turkey."
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=30542
Uranium Enrichment
Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 33
March 2006
Most of the 470 commercial nuclear power reactors operating or under construction in the world today require uranium 'enriched' in the U-235 isotope for their fuel.
Two commercial processes are employed for this enrichment. Another process based on laser excitation is under development in Australia.
Uranium found in nature consists largely of two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. The production of energy in nuclear reactors is from the `fission' or splitting of the U-235 atoms, a process which releases energy in the form of heat. U-235 is the main fissile isotope of uranium.
Natural uranium contains 0.7% of the U-235 isotope. The remaining 99.3% is mostly the U-238 isotope which does not contribute directly to the fission process (though it does so indirectly by the formation of fissile isotopes of plutonium).
Uranium-235 and U-238 are chemically identical, but differ in their physical properties, particularly their mass. The nucleus of the U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons, giving an atomic mass of 235 units. The U-238 nucleus also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons - three more than U-235, and therefore has a mass of 238 units.
The difference in mass between U-235 and U-238 allows the isotopes to be separated and makes it possible to increase or "enrich" the percentage of U-235. All present enrichment processes, directly or indirectly, make use of this small mass difference.
Some reactors, for example the Canadian-designed Candu and the British Magnox reactors, use natural uranium as their fuel. Most present day reactors (Light Water Reactors or LWRs) use enriched uranium where the proportion of the U-235 isotope has been increased from 0.7% to about 3 or up to 5%. (For comparison, uranium used for nuclear weapons would have to be enriched in plants specially designed to produce at least 90% U-235.)
CONVERSION
Uranium leaves the mine as the concentrate of a stable oxide known as U3O8 or as a peroxide. It still contains some impurities and prior to enrichment has to be further refined before being converted to uranium hexafluoride (UF6), commonly referred to as `hex'.
Conversion plants are operating commercially in USA, Canada, France, UK and Russia.
After initial refining, which may involve the production of uranyl nitrate, uranium trioxide is reduced in a kiln by hydrogen to uranium dioxide (UO2). This is then reacted in another kiln with hydrogen fluoride (HF) to form uranium tetrafluoride (UF4). The tetrafluoride is then fed into a fluidised bed reactor with gaseous fluorine to produce UF6. Removal of impurities takes place at each step.
An alternative wet process involves making the UF4 from UO2 by a wet process, using aqueous HF.
The UF6, particularly if moist, is highly corrosive. When warm it is a gas, suitable for use in the enrichment process. At lower temperature and under moderate pressure, the UF6 can be liquefied. The liquid is run into specially designed steel shipping cylinders which are thick walled and weigh over 15 tonnes when full. As it cools, the liquid UF6 within the cylinder becomes a white crystalline solid and is shipped in this form.
The siting, environmental and security management of a conversion plant is subject to the regulations that are in effect for any chemical processing plant involving fluorine-based chemicals.
ENRICHMENT
A number of enrichment processes have been demonstrated in the laboratory but only two, the gaseous diffusion process and the centrifuge process, are operating on a commercial scale. In both of these, UF6 gas is used as the feed material. Molecules of UF6 with U-235 atoms are about one percent lighter than the rest, and this difference in mass is the basis of both processes.
Large commercial enrichment plants are in operation in France, Germany, Netherlands, UK, USA, and Russia, with smaller plants elsewhere.
Country Method Capacity in 2002 x 1000 kg SWU/yr
France diffusion 10,800
Germany-Netherlands-UK centrifuge 5,850
Japan centrifuge 900
USA diffusion 8,000
Russia centrifuge 20,000
China mostly centrifuge 1,000-1,300
Pakistan centrifuge 5
total 47,000 approx
Concerning oil prices jumping based on Iran's new stmt, "they may use oil as a weapon, if referred for sanctions." There is no question as to their referral for sanctions, that will happen, 100% chance. Lord knows there is nothing I would like better than to see oil prices jump to $70., my portfolios are loaded with OSIX and refiners, however, I am afraid that the only sanction imposed on Iran is going to be a sanction on the time they have to stop enrichment activity before they really are sanctioned with more sanctions.
The whole thing is ridiculous. The media is either absolute idiots, absolute liars, or just plain Evil. I've read three articles this weekend stating Iran plans full scale enrichment if they are referred for sanctions. The articles go on to say Iran plans to install 3,000 centrifuges to allow full scale enrichment activities. Now, I believe the 3,000 part. The media saying this allows full scale enrichment is an out and out lie. The facts, it takes at least 50,000 centrifuges to achieve enrichment activities which would be considered as full scale to support Nuclear Power or Nuclear Weapons capabilities. Final note, to our knowledge, Iran currently has 10 centrifuges. Nukes only require 4% enriched uranium to provide neutron supply absorption reactions in order to sustain fission heat necessary to produce steam for power production.
The one red flag thrown last week was the IAEA announced Iran now has the technology to hook em togethor. Big leap in technology, because, if they can hook 10 together they can hook 3,000 togethor and so on.
Definition for ridiculous: Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly. See Synonyms at foolish.
If you go to the link at the bottom of this article then to the related section on the page and click on Iran nuclear facilities, CNN has an excellent collection of photos of Iran's Nuclear sites. Very interesting to scroll through the gallery.
PS: Don't believe anything Iran says, as far as investment decisions go, this is the fifth time in the last year they have said they might use oil as a weapon, so far, they have retracted that statement every time, it is just to risky, at this point, to bet on oil prices jumping due to this statement. Next, don't forget the $10 Billion deal they just did with China to develop their southern oil fields, also GWB just ok'd the Iranian, Pakistan, India NG pipeline deal today. Meaning, we are bending, concerning types of sanctions that will be imposed if it comes to that. China and Russia both have veto powers over sanctions, chances are pretty good at this point that Russia would be the one to veto sanctions or, at least, put off sanctions for another round of talks,
Iran issues warning on uranium enrichment
Sunday, March 5, 2006; Posted: 9:43 a.m. EST (14:43 GMT)
Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said his country will pursue its own path.
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran will resume large-scale nuclear enrichment if the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors refers the Islamic Republic to the U.N. Security Council, the country's chief nuclear negotiator said Sunday.
Ali Larijani also warned that Iran could use its oil production "as a weapon" if the nuclear imbroglio worsens.
The IAEA board of governors meets Monday, and it is expected to refer the matter to the Security Council.
"Referral to the Security Council will not have any benefit for us or anyone else," said Larijani.
"And this will actually cause a lot of problems for others. Referral to Security Council would definitely be a setback to the discussion and the talks. To have a nuclear program, this is our God-given right, and no country will give up such a right. We have left all the doors open for discussion."
"We will definitely resume our enrichment and if Iran is referred to the Security Council."
Iran has already resumed enrichment on a very small scale at its Natanz research facility, testing an cascading array of 20 centrifuges, according to the IAEA. Thousands of centrifuges are required to produce enough enriched uranium to be useful.
Iran insists it wants to use its nuclear program to augment a burgeoning domestic demand for electricity, freeing up its vast oil reserves -- Iran is estimated to have the fourth largest in the world -- for export.
But the West -- particularly the United States -- believes Iran intends to build nuclear weapons, an allegation Iran denies. Three years of negotiations with Britain, France and Germany -- known as the EU-3 -- failed to produce an agreement.
The last such negotiations fell apart Friday, although German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the talks were held in a "very constructive atmosphere" and he remained hopeful that Tehran "will take the necessary steps for confidence-building measures in order to continue the dialogue which we all very much want."
Larijani had requested that session after meeting in Moscow with officials about a Russian proposal to enrich uranium for Tehran inside Russia, provided Iran cease enrichment activities inside its own borders. But, he said Sunday that "the doors to discussion are open."
"We would like to continue our dialogue," he said.
He warned, however, that adverse action against Iran by the Security Council could force Iran to respond in kind.
"We have no interest to use oil as a sort of weapon to fight other countries," he said. "But naturally, this may become a weapon of resistance from our country if the situation gets worse."
"To threaten Iran ... it just causes Iran to cut back on its cooperation," he said.
Larijani also blamed the United States for fanning the flames the problem.
"The American Government needs to create some kind of crisis because, now, in regard to Iraq, they have made a huge mess, and now they have to redirect the attention of the world to something else."
The United States has no direct ties with Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/05/iran.nuclear/index.html
No deal reached in Iran nuclear talks
Items compiled from Tribune news services
Published March 3, 2006
MOSCOW, RUSSIA -- Iran and Russia ended talks Thursday without reaching a deal on a Kremlin effort to defuse tensions over the Islamic republic's nuclear program, and the Iranians flew to Austria for meetings with European nations, Russian news agencies reported.
Tehran's top nuclear negotiator accused the United States of trying to sabotage the deal, in which Russia has offered to host Iran's uranium enrichment activities as a way to increase international monitoring of Iran's nuclear efforts.
Ali Larijani said at a news conference that Washington's push to have Iran reported to the UN Security Council would kill Moscow's proposal.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603030142mar03,1,282776.story?coll=chi-newsnatio...
Nuclear workers appeal verdict quashing compensation for hazardous work
02.3.06 | 10:13 By Haim Bior
Labor representatives are escalating the struggle to gain regular compensation for workers exposed to hazardous working conditions in the nuclear sector.
The labor committee of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission yesterday appealed a lower court ruling that quashed a motion for compensation. The appeal was filed jointly with the Histadrut labor federation, at the National Labor Tribunal.
Earlier the Be'er Sheva Regional Labor Court had rejected the request to order the IAEC management to enforce labor and safety laws.
The union claims that IAEC workers' safety is not assured as the law requires, and that they are exposed to dangerous materials, chemicals, and cancer-causing radiation.
The lower regional court had accepted IAEC's request to quash the lawsuit. The judge explained that the claim as to hazards is theoretical, because no one on the job has contracted cancer.
The appeal countered: "The fact that employees are healthy (save for one who is suffering from cancer) should not pose an obstacle. It's unacceptable that a worker should have to suffer harm to one's body for the gates of the labor court to open up before him."
The union's lawyer filing the appeal retorted that the regional court ignored workers' testimony that the IAEC is violating labor laws and that safety regulations are not being obeyed.
"If workers are denied the possibility of enforcing safety laws in their factory, leaving safety protection in the hands of the employer, the latter will make decisions based on economic considerations," the union claims.
The union said the suit is not a regular damage suit dealing with preventing harm to workers, but rather one meant to oblige the IAEC to comply with safety laws as well as to allow employees to demand and receive financial compensation for damages already suffered.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/689437.html
Dubi
Followers
|
1
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
81
|
Created
|
02/28/06
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderator SeriousMoney | |||
Assistants |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |