Ext User(KANGAROOISTAN)
02-03-2006, 05:33 PM
Arash wrote:
> Associated Press (AP)
> February 27, 2006
>
> Iran ever a "threat", never an atomic power!
>
> Iran points up challenges of nuclear technology
>
> Charles Hanley
>
> The Iranians may have an atom bomb within two years, the authoritative British Jane's
> Defence Weekly warned. That was in 1984, two decades ago!
>
> Four years later, the world was again put on notice, this time by Iraq, that Tehran
> was at the nuclear threshold, and in 1992 the CIA foresaw atomic arms in Iranian
> hands by 2000. Then U.S. officials pushed that back to 2003. And in 1997 the Israelis
> confidently predicted a new date - 2005.
>
> Now, as 2006 wears on, and a global focus sharpens on Iran's nuclear ambitions, the
> coming of any Iranian doomsday arsenal looks to be years away, experts say. Those
> past predictions consistently underplayed the technological challenges of a bomb
> program.
>
> Iran itself, which said Tuesday it has begun enriching small amounts of uranium,
> denies its enrichment program is intended to produce anything beyond weaker fuel for
> civilian nuclear power plants, not the highly enriched uranium that can fuel a bomb.
>
> The United Nations Security Council is expected to take up the issue next month, when
> skeptics may push for sanctions against Tehran. But few specialists view a potential
> Iranian bomb as an imminent threat. In fact, the latest estimate from the CIA and
> other U.S. intelligence agencies sees no Iranian bomb before the next decade. Israeli
> defence experts agree, speaking of a 2012 date.
>
> The technology involved - uranium gas centrifuges - guarantees delays, said
> Washington analyst Corey Hinderstein.
>
> "It's a very complicated process requiring precision from design and engineering to
> manufacture and installation, and there's a lot of room for problems", said Corey
> Hinderstein, who for a decade has tracked Iranian nuclear developments with the
> Institute for Science and International Security
> (http://www.isis-online.org/about/staff/chinderstein.html).
>
> http://epic-usa.org/_pics/_forum/hinderstein.jpg
> Corey Hinderstein
>
> Enrichment occurs in vast arrays of centrifuges, thin-walled cylinders of strong but
> superlight materials - typically three to six feet tall and several centimetres
> wide - into which uranium gas is fed. Each of these "rotors", with just a few
> milligrams of gas, spins on its axis at up to 70,000 revolutions per minute,
> separating the heavier uranium-238 from the rarer U-235, the isotope whose nucleus
> can "fission" to produce energy.
>
> Pumped through thousands of "cascading" cylinders, the mixture's content is gradually
> boosted to over three per cent U-235, the level needed for power generators. If
> extended, the process can produce 90% enriched uranium, the stuff of bombs.
>
> But centrifuges vibrate, shatter, fail regularly, because of imprecise machining,
> slight imbalances magnified at superhigh speeds, imperfect bearings.
>
> "A vast percentage of centrifuges have to be rejected in testing, up to 60%
> rejection", said Frank Barnaby (http://www.granta.com/authors/2190), a former British
> weapons scientist, now with the Oxford Research Group
> (http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/aboutus/staff.htm).
>
> The Iranians plan to install 50,000 centrifuges in huge underground halls at Natanz,
> Iran. But fewer than half the 1140 machines they had assembled by 2004, using
> ultrathin aluminum, were good enough to use in cascades, the UN nuclear agency has
> reported. And problems develop not only with materials, said a retired U.S.
> centrifuge specialist.
>
> "There are also problems with scoops and other things on the inside. You have to
> design the electronics that give you variable frequencies. You have to lubricate them
> properly, hook them together properly, maintain the vacuum," said this scientist,
> speaking on condition he not be named because of his sensitive former government
> position.
>
> Hinderstein's ISIS calculates that at its last known assembly rate of about 100 per
> month, Iran would take years to emplace thousands of centrifuges at Natanz, a plant
> that theoretically could eventually produce highly enriched uranium for dozens of
> bombs a year.
>
> The ISIS experts suggest Iran could speed things up with a basic small plant of 1500
> centrifuges, to produce enough bomb fuel for one weapon. Even then, the assembly,
> testing and production process would take the project into 2009, they estimate.
>
> And, asked Frank Barnaby, "who do you deter with just one weapon?"
>
> Even before the centrifuge stage, however, Iran must overcome another technical
> problem.
>
> Too many impurities remain in the gas produced from processed uranium ore, or
> yellowcake, at Iran's uranium conversion facility, the magazine Science reported last
> month, quoting an unidentified U.S. government official.
>
> The gas conversion facility was built on a Chinese design, but Beijing backed out of
> the project in 1998, leaving the Iranians without Chinese expertise to ensure the
> best product.
>
> Contaminants in the uranium hexafluoride gas can block valves and piping. "Those
> impurities do muck up your centrifuges", Frank Barnaby said
> (http://www.granta.com/audio). "It's not a problem if you want 3.5% enriched uranium
> for power plants, but if you go to 90% these impurities are a major problem".
>
> Few specialists doubt that the Iranians, with years of work, could overcome such
> engineering problems. But are they seeking a bomb?
>
> Mustafa Kibaroglu (http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/person.cfm?program=CORE&item_id=861),
> of Ankara's Bilkent University
> (http://catalog.bilkent.edu.tr/current/instructor/i2087.html), told The Associated
> Press nine years ago that Iran was incapable of building a nuclear weapon earlier
> than 2012. Now that his is a widely accepted timetable, this Turkish expert, who has
> consulted with Iranian leaders, says politics, more than technology, will be the
> deciding factor.
>
> "Having the capability to build weapons doesn't mean that they will build nuclear
> weapons", he said. "This is an issue yet to be decided by Iran's (Muslim) clerical
> leadership. This issue is not to be discounted".
>
> http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8367e0e9-149b-4a1e-9c74-1a979bd3e325&k=72529
> Associated Press (AP)
> February 27, 2006
>
> Iran ever a "threat", never an atomic power!
>
> Iran points up challenges of nuclear technology
>
> Charles Hanley
>
> The Iranians may have an atom bomb within two years, the authoritative British Jane's
> Defence Weekly warned. That was in 1984, two decades ago!
>
> Four years later, the world was again put on notice, this time by Iraq, that Tehran
> was at the nuclear threshold, and in 1992 the CIA foresaw atomic arms in Iranian
> hands by 2000. Then U.S. officials pushed that back to 2003. And in 1997 the Israelis
> confidently predicted a new date - 2005.
>
> Now, as 2006 wears on, and a global focus sharpens on Iran's nuclear ambitions, the
> coming of any Iranian doomsday arsenal looks to be years away, experts say. Those
> past predictions consistently underplayed the technological challenges of a bomb
> program.
>
> Iran itself, which said Tuesday it has begun enriching small amounts of uranium,
> denies its enrichment program is intended to produce anything beyond weaker fuel for
> civilian nuclear power plants, not the highly enriched uranium that can fuel a bomb.
>
> The United Nations Security Council is expected to take up the issue next month, when
> skeptics may push for sanctions against Tehran. But few specialists view a potential
> Iranian bomb as an imminent threat. In fact, the latest estimate from the CIA and
> other U.S. intelligence agencies sees no Iranian bomb before the next decade. Israeli
> defence experts agree, speaking of a 2012 date.
>
> The technology involved - uranium gas centrifuges - guarantees delays, said
> Washington analyst Corey Hinderstein.
>
> "It's a very complicated process requiring precision from design and engineering to
> manufacture and installation, and there's a lot of room for problems", said Corey
> Hinderstein, who for a decade has tracked Iranian nuclear developments with the
> Institute for Science and International Security
> (http://www.isis-online.org/about/staff/chinderstein.html).
>
> http://epic-usa.org/_pics/_forum/hinderstein.jpg
> Corey Hinderstein
>
> Enrichment occurs in vast arrays of centrifuges, thin-walled cylinders of strong but
> superlight materials - typically three to six feet tall and several centimetres
> wide - into which uranium gas is fed. Each of these "rotors", with just a few
> milligrams of gas, spins on its axis at up to 70,000 revolutions per minute,
> separating the heavier uranium-238 from the rarer U-235, the isotope whose nucleus
> can "fission" to produce energy.
>
> Pumped through thousands of "cascading" cylinders, the mixture's content is gradually
> boosted to over three per cent U-235, the level needed for power generators. If
> extended, the process can produce 90% enriched uranium, the stuff of bombs.
>
> But centrifuges vibrate, shatter, fail regularly, because of imprecise machining,
> slight imbalances magnified at superhigh speeds, imperfect bearings.
>
> "A vast percentage of centrifuges have to be rejected in testing, up to 60%
> rejection", said Frank Barnaby (http://www.granta.com/authors/2190), a former British
> weapons scientist, now with the Oxford Research Group
> (http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/aboutus/staff.htm).
>
> The Iranians plan to install 50,000 centrifuges in huge underground halls at Natanz,
> Iran. But fewer than half the 1140 machines they had assembled by 2004, using
> ultrathin aluminum, were good enough to use in cascades, the UN nuclear agency has
> reported. And problems develop not only with materials, said a retired U.S.
> centrifuge specialist.
>
> "There are also problems with scoops and other things on the inside. You have to
> design the electronics that give you variable frequencies. You have to lubricate them
> properly, hook them together properly, maintain the vacuum," said this scientist,
> speaking on condition he not be named because of his sensitive former government
> position.
>
> Hinderstein's ISIS calculates that at its last known assembly rate of about 100 per
> month, Iran would take years to emplace thousands of centrifuges at Natanz, a plant
> that theoretically could eventually produce highly enriched uranium for dozens of
> bombs a year.
>
> The ISIS experts suggest Iran could speed things up with a basic small plant of 1500
> centrifuges, to produce enough bomb fuel for one weapon. Even then, the assembly,
> testing and production process would take the project into 2009, they estimate.
>
> And, asked Frank Barnaby, "who do you deter with just one weapon?"
>
> Even before the centrifuge stage, however, Iran must overcome another technical
> problem.
>
> Too many impurities remain in the gas produced from processed uranium ore, or
> yellowcake, at Iran's uranium conversion facility, the magazine Science reported last
> month, quoting an unidentified U.S. government official.
>
> The gas conversion facility was built on a Chinese design, but Beijing backed out of
> the project in 1998, leaving the Iranians without Chinese expertise to ensure the
> best product.
>
> Contaminants in the uranium hexafluoride gas can block valves and piping. "Those
> impurities do muck up your centrifuges", Frank Barnaby said
> (http://www.granta.com/audio). "It's not a problem if you want 3.5% enriched uranium
> for power plants, but if you go to 90% these impurities are a major problem".
>
> Few specialists doubt that the Iranians, with years of work, could overcome such
> engineering problems. But are they seeking a bomb?
>
> Mustafa Kibaroglu (http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/person.cfm?program=CORE&item_id=861),
> of Ankara's Bilkent University
> (http://catalog.bilkent.edu.tr/current/instructor/i2087.html), told The Associated
> Press nine years ago that Iran was incapable of building a nuclear weapon earlier
> than 2012. Now that his is a widely accepted timetable, this Turkish expert, who has
> consulted with Iranian leaders, says politics, more than technology, will be the
> deciding factor.
>
> "Having the capability to build weapons doesn't mean that they will build nuclear
> weapons", he said. "This is an issue yet to be decided by Iran's (Muslim) clerical
> leadership. This issue is not to be discounted".
>
> http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8367e0e9-149b-4a1e-9c74-1a979bd3e325&k=72529