Iranian Intentions

June 9th, 2009 at 09:06am Edward Troy 191

I don't know what they are.

I do understand that centrifuges are not needed for nuclear power. I do know that centrifuges are needed to produce weapons grade Uranium. The fissile isotope U-235 in the only Standard Temperature gaseous compound of Uranium -uranium hexafluoride (UF6) weighs (molecular weight) slightly more than 99.1477% of the non fissile isotope U-238 in the same chemical compound. Physical means are necessary to separate the two, since they are the same element, there are no chemical means to separate them -- hence the need for centrifuges. Gaseous diffusion filters also work, but are much slower.

Possession of U-235 does not guarantee the desire to build and use a fission bomb any more than bullets and gun possesion guarantees a latent desire to commit murder. Possession certainly makes the acts more acheivable through convenient impulse.

Entry Filed under: Foreign Policy, Middle East, War

7 Comments Add your own

1. Sue Gray | June 9th, 2009 at 9:29 am

I guess the assumption is that Iran possesses or is trying to obtain centrifuges. Do we know that for a fact? Or is this like Saddam's supposed African yellow-cake caper?

Regarding assumptions, on Monday's show Michael said, "Any nation that develops nuclear power is interested in nuclear weapons."

I wonder how accurate that is.
2. Edward Troy | June 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am

Iran has supposedly made a technological engineering breakthrough regarding centrifuges. They used to be made of Aluminum and this was replaced with maraging steel a highly specialized ultra-high strength steel. Maraging steel has incredible restrictions in trade. The old Zippe p1 Pakistani centrifuges were replaced by something different; carbon fiber centrifuges. It might be possible that they used a ceramic base for rigidity with the fibers giving tensile strength -- but I am not sure.

Some reactors require a little enrichment of Uranium, some do not. ALL weaponization of a Uranium fission bomb requires highly enriched Uranium.

Side note: There is no possibility that N Korea has the combination of telemetry control, payload capacity and weapons miniaturization necessary for a useful ICBM.
3. Sue Gray | June 11th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Ed,

On Con Games Barry Schochett said that the danger with Iran having a nuclear weapon is that they could give it to a group or individual to detonate and thus escape blame. But isn't it true that the material in those weapons have a signature that would lead investigators to the place they were made? Or is that just Hollywood?
4. Edward Troy | June 11th, 2009 at 10:40 pm

It should be theoretically possible to leave blend of isotopes of alloyed with the uranium-235 or plutonium -242 (which are not the only thermal neutron fissile elements) that would leave very distinct types of fall out; assuming that the materials in question were "registered" in this manner. Of course that would mean that there was the presumptive foresight and intelligence to create the registry. With Mutually Assured Distruction as one of the banners of humanity, I wouldn't count on it. It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World! Any chemical signature can be chemically eliminated fairly easily. It would be very difficult for instance to know the origin of 24 carat gold, the same problems exist with the Uranium.

The dreaded suitcase bomb would still weigh close to 100 pounds The wieght of the uranium can go way down if it is enriched to over 90% -- no easy task and probably wasteful of fissile material. The gravest danger would be any entity putting a device on a yacht and brought to harbor in a densely populated zone and remotely triggering it.

Someone releasing genetically altered smallpox purifying humanity for God, would have me MUCH more concerned.

Assuming no registry exists
5. Edward Troy | June 12th, 2009 at 9:33 am

It would be very difficult for instance to know the origin of 24 carat gold, the same problems exist with the Uranium.
Assuming no registry exists.

It was a little late.
6. Sue Gray | June 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Ed, No I got it the first time; unless the material is registered, which I assume means inspected and tested at its source, it can't be traced.

I remember when the Russian (diplomat...journalist...I forget exactly) was poisoned with nuclear material, they were able to trace it back to Russia. Does that mean all of Russia's nuclear material is registered?

We know that Israel's nuclear facilities have never undergone inspection or registration, so isn't it conceivable they could "leak" some to terrorists, then blame the subsequent disaster on Iran? I know it's another Hollywood scenario, but knowing some of the sinister things done by the CIA and Mossad, perhaps it's something we should consider.
7. Edward Troy | June 20th, 2009 at 10:43 am

I remember when the Russian (diplomat...journalist...I forget exactly) was poisoned with nuclear material, they were able to trace it back to Russia. Does that mean all of Russia's nuclear material is registered?

I believe that was a Palladium tipped umbrella in one case, and a chlorinated compound for the president of Ukraine?
The present Russian secret service uses signatures as messeges.