Obviously a lot of smart and well-informed people have been thinking about this. Many, like Juan Cole, think that the Iranians are nowhere close to a bomb; ThinkProgress is slightly less sanguine. They are taking the trouble to make this argument because the US is claiming that it would only take 16 days for Iran to make a bomb. There are all sorts of reasons to disbelieve this particular claim: a history of crying wolf, an apparent misunderstanding of the concept of significant figures… Still, is it more like ten days, or ten years?
Steinn Sigurðsson looks at the problem as a physicist, and isn’t optimistic.
I don’t know Iran; I don’t have access to any classified information on nuclear weapons.
I do know something about physics…First of all, Iran is clearly been working on putting together a full nuclear cycle for about 20 years
That means they want to be able to do it all in-house: mining, enrichment, burning, plutonium extraction, power generation and bomb production.
It is clear that they did the science in the early-to-mid-90s, they tested centrifuges, built small high neutron flux reactors and got small amounts of plutonium extracted.
So, they learned Pu chemistry, what isotopes you get with different burns, and maybe some metallurgy.
They then set up centrifuge halls and played with an AVLIS (laser isotope separator).
They also ordered a 1GW reactor from the russians, and refined uranium oxide (aka “yellowcake”) into both uranium tetrafluoride, uranium hexafluoride and uranium metal.
Supposedly several tons of uranium oxide were processed.Now: there are two ways to make bombs, at the basic level.
Get highly refined uranium-235 metal; or, fairly pure plutonium-239. In kilogram quantities.
U-235 bombs are simple and need not be tested. “A grad student could make one of those”.
Pu-239 bombs are notoriously fickle and are said to need testing (although maybe not so much any more…)
Read the whole thing.
Hofstadter’s Law says “It always takes longer than you think, even when taking into account Hofstadter’s Law.” For nuclear weapons, unfortunately, the word “longer” should be replaced by “shorter.” Historically, we always underestimate the proximity of other nations to full nuclear capability (unless we’re trying to cook up reasons to invade them). I don’t know what to do about it, but there’s every reason to believe that, left to its own devices, Iran will have some sort of bomb sooner rather than later.
Arun, you are right! Regardless of the crazy politics behind an Iranian bomb, subsidizing oil is a bad idea, especially under the present circumstances.
Under the current conditions, you can understand why Iran would pursue enrichment technology, if only for their civilian nuclear program. They are investing billions in a civilian nuclear energy program. They hope to convert a significant fraction of their power grid to nuclear energy.
But their would-be supplier of reactor-grade enriched uranium appears to be implacably hostile, and is easily in a position to enforce an embargo. The only way (from their point of view) to ensure a continued supply is to build their own enrichment facilities.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a 2-way street. The signatories agree to forgo the development of nuclear weapons (and nuclear weapons technology) and submit it IAEA inspections. In return they gain access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel from the existing nuclear powers.
That is, Iran (a signatory) agrees to forgo the ability to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium; in return, the US (and the other nuclear powers) agree to sell them all the reactor grade uranium they need. The Iranians, justified or not, have serious doubts as to whether the US will live up to its end of the bargain.
That’s not to say that I am convinced that the Iranians are not also pursuing nuclear weapons. Perhaps they are. But their behaviour is perfectly explicable, even if they are not.
That doesn’t seem to phase (or even impinge on the consciousness of) the hawks, inside and outside the Administration, who are willing to start a nuclear war over the matter.
During these high stake games of nuclear chance, I will remain a steadfast dove.
This is the most important issue facing the world today. I’d make these points:
1. The current Iranian president is a true believer (thinks a halo appeared on his head as he addressed the U.N.) in a millenarian apocalyptic vision (return of the 12th Imam) in which he and Iran will play a pivotal role.
2. An Iranian nuke is therefore far more dangerous than a North Korean (ordinary Stalinist) one.
3. An attack that does not displace the current leadership will make things worse.
4. Not attacking will likely result in the nuking of Israel and at least one American city (through the Iranian sponsored terrorist network).
6. There is no credible argument that there is not at least a 20% chance of an Iranian nuke within a year.
7. A 20% chance of an American city being nuked (or dirty bombed) requires the President to act pursuant to his oath of office.
8. The ongoing threat posed by an existing Iranian nuke will result in Western legislatures enacting special laws to protect Muslim sensibilities (e.g. honor killings will be tolerated, 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution will be ignored, pop culture censored), thus unraveling Western culture as we know it. [If you think the West was unduly obsequious over the Mohamed cartoons in fear of Muslim violence, imagine how it’ll act in fear of Iranian nukes.]
9. Best strategy in my opinion is to act immediately to foment a revolution and to assist it:
a) Obtain maximal world support for enforcement of U.N. resolutions. [Bribe Russia and China as needed.]
b) Fully fund the underground Iranian freedom movement.
c) Massively fund Persian-run pro-freedom radio and TV [Do not involve Reza Palavi (the Shah’s son)]. [Minimize preaching. Show them with entertaining programs (sitcoms etc.) what life in free Iran could be like. Drench them in pop music.]
d) Massively arm the underground Iranian freedom movement.
e) Coordinate a military strike with the Iranian freedom movement. [U.S. role: bomb weapons labs, police stations, military facilities, TV stations, living quarters of the ruling clerics, disrupt government communications, transmit radio & TV broadcasts of Iranian freedom forces on all Iranian state channels, maintain air superiority]
f) Arm the Iranian populace. [Air drop weapons.]
g) Contain the ensuing civil war within Iranian borders, while continuing to fund and support pro-freedom forces (with money, weapons, satellite intel).
f) Recognize the new Free Republic of Iran, and assist them with post-civil war reconstruction funds.
Few more comments:
the Russians supply Iran with their technology, under the NPT.
The Bushehr reactor dates back to the Shah’s rule. It is late in part because
the Iraqis bombed it in 1984 (if I recall).
The fuel for Bushehr is supposed to be returned to Russia for reprocessing
to prevent plutonium extraction and is supposed to stay in the core for a year or longer to make sure the Pu-239 is contaminated with Pu-240 and Pu-241.
If Bushehr-1 is fueled and turned on, and the Iranians then block or expel the IAEA, with the acquiesence of expulsion of the Russians, then they can have bomb grade Pu-239 in 3-4 months by doing a short burn which creates minimal Pu-240/241. This is inefficient for power production, good for bomb making.
Depending on how good their design is, a 4 month run could make enough Pu-239 for 3-10 bombs, and same again every 4 months until they run out of fuel. If they can do their own enrichment, or if they build heavy water reactors, then they never run out of fuel to breed plutonium.
If they learned the plutonium chemistry from their lab experiments in the 90s, then they can get metallic Pu extracted, cast and machined very quickly. Weeks.
This is why the situation is escalating, Bushehr is supposed to go on the grid in 6 months. That means they must load the fuel now, and start test runs.
It would mean open defiance of IAEA and the UN, but that is right where they are headed now.
U-235 fission bombs, with yields up to some tens of kilotons of TNT equivalent are easy; you make 2-3 sphere segments, keep them apart and shoot them at each other inside a metal tube when you’re ready. Boom.
If you try that with Pu-239, according to reliable sources, it squibs. It goes partly critical faster than it can assemble into a sphere, and the heat pushes the plutonium a part. You get a very incomplete explosion, with bits of melted and burned plutonium metal. Messy and mostly useless.
Similarly too much Pu-240 or Pu-241 in you plutonium and it can’t be assembled without going critical prematurely, possibly spontaneously.
The way around that is to have a small plutonium core, with the remaining segments in spherical shell, like the skin of a soccer ball. Then you implode the segments onto the core using high velocity explosive in a simultaneous and very symmetric implosion. Tricky, but straighforward. Require fast detonation, high velocity, pure explosive (which can be bought); and fast switches (which can be bought) – this is 1940s tech.
This gives you controllable yield over maybe a factor of 10-100 without much fuss.
If you want much broader yield range, or very light compact warheads, or something that will trigger thermonuclear fusion reactions, then you need good engineers and some experiments (or experience for hire). 1950s tech.
If you want something that will make a very big boom as deterrent to attack or invasion, which can be installed as a mine, or in truck/ship, and you don’t care if it is dirty due to incomplete burn or “only” 10 kilotons instead of 30 kT, then you’re done.
Just churn them out one or two per month as long as the reactor runs and the labs are open.
The current situation in Iran is a result of the last 50 years of policy, which from the US side started with the overthrow of Mossadegh, continuing with the propping up of the Shah of Iran, the implicit support to Saddam to attack Iran, rebuff of all overtures by Iran during the 90s. A war against Iran will simply add to the bad karma.
I will probably make myself persona non grata – but the Israelis and Palestinians receive aid of the order of $100 – $1000 per capita per annum from the rest ofthe world (which is huge compared to any other peoples), total number between 10-12 million, and their conflict holds the world hostage. 10 million of them versus 5990 million of us. If the use of force anywhere is justified, IMO, forcing the two to make nice is it, IMO.
I suppose “Bushehr” is something like “Bu-” + “-shehr” (city); but it might end up as Bush’s error.
Belizean, Bin Laden and Zarqawi would be very happy with these plans. 🙂
Kim is also a true believer in the communist system. Millions of his people have starved to death because of that ideology.
Both Kim and Ahmadinejad are rational enough not to start a nuclear war. If Afhanistan under the Taleban regime were enriching uranium then it would have been a different matter.
Didn’t the latest National Intelligence Estimate estimate that Iran was about ten years from developing nuclear weapons, up from the previous estimate of about five years? If so, we have plenty of time to work out a response. Somebody cited the Soviet- but the Soviets had a very extensive network of spies giving them information from the American research, and some people did estimate that they would develop nuclear weapons by 1950.
I really don’t see why this is producing such a fuss. Iran has an unpleasant, moderately unpredictable government, but I have seen no evidence that they are so irrational as to shoot a nuclear weapon at the nearest target as soon as they get one in order to bring on the Apocalypse. For Iran to get nuclear weapons would be bad, and we should try to prevent it by peaceful means if possible, but it would hardly threaten civilization.
Any American military action against Iran would be disastrous. Holding Iraq would become much more difficult, the growing forces of moderation inside Iran would be silenced, and a lot of people would die.
Kim is just another Stalinist. His concern is merely with retaining power. He wants his nukes so that he can arbitrarily oppress (even to the point of mass starvation) the North Korean population without fear of being attacked. The dream of global communism is dead, even within Kim.
You could not be more wrong about Ahmadinejad. He would be perfectly willing to “martyr” himself and millions of Muslims to destroy Israel and cripple the “Great Satan.” According to Time (via Wikipedia)
“[H]e is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi’ism’s version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away. He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for “those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink … as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive” his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution’s raison d’être is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos.” –Time Magazine: “Today Tehran, Tomorrow the World” March 2006
or
“One of the main reasons why the big powers oppose Iran on the nuclear issue is for the sake of the Zionist regime, so as to let this regime live on. But they are unaware that not only will the Iranian nation continue in the path of obtaining nuclear energy till the end, it will not even for one instant divert its attention from the issue of Palestine”. –Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 3-15-06
To Ahmadinejad it would be perfectly rational to start a nuclear war, if this would serve Allah by destroying or crippling His enemies.
Thanks for your very straightforward and excellent responses, Dr. Sigurdsson.
Cynthia, this is OT so I’ll make it short. I don’t think there are essential geological differences past-present, but IIRC todays ecological complexity is largest ever. Ecological complexity confer stability. (Which is one reason why lowering it confer more risks.) But I agree on the matter of respect for diversifying energy production.
To play devil’s advocate, isn’t essentially the same statement true of every civilian reactor operated in an NPT signatory country? They could always time dropping out of the NPT with a delivery of new fuel rods for their reactor facility.
But getting from there to a (working) Pu-239 device is nontrivial.
Iran’s been hard at work at uranium enrichment. But there’s no evidence that they have or are developing the capability to reprocess fuel rods. (I’ll set aside the problems, given the plutonium, of engineering a working device.) Absent such facilities, diverting fuel rods
a) will not buy them very much
b) will not go undetected for long.
Iran’s enrichment program is more worrisome than the thought that they are somehow going to start plutonium production. But I don’t see how it rises to the level of concern that would warrant starting a nuclear war over.
All this discussion assumes Russia and China will just sit quietly while US (and Isreal?) rain bombs, perhaps even nuclear “bunker busters”, on Iran.
Who owns much of the enormous US debt? If they stop buying or start dumping US treasuries, it could cause a serious financial meltdown. China has recently signed contracts with Iran on oil exploration. The oil market will react if there is major escalation, which will be ruinous.
World wars get started over smaller matters. Unfortunately, unlike previous times, the danger of miscalculation is instant annihilation.
The point is that near-term aerial attacks in support of Iranian revolutionaries need not not be nuclear if this incapacitates the current leadership.
If the leadership retains power, it can nuke the U.S. with impunity (or extort and blackmail by credibly threatening to do so). All it need do is pass bombs to terrorist operatives that are not clearly connected to Iran.
To properly calibrate your concern meter, imagine a uranium enrichment program being run by a Christian fundamentalist sect in Montana that firmly believes in the apocalyptic second coming of Christ. This is would be frightening. But, given the demonstrated violence of Muslim extremism as compared to any Christian counterpart, it’s not nearly as frightening as the program in Iran.
One might have thought that those advocating regime-change in Iran would be slightly humbled by the debacle of their previous attempt at regime-change in Iraq.
Evidently not ….
Belizean, the antecedent in your point #7
does not follow from your points #4 and #6 (by the way, you have no point #5).
With regards to your policy proposals in point #9 f), g), and f) [sic], that ought to be a cakewalk. Let’s get the label on the door of Bush’s Iraq planning team changed, and they can start on it right away.
My own personal opinion is the Iranian Government has Nuclear Arms allready! They have imported weapons from another “Islamic” state, but cannot anounce to the world they have joined the Nuclear “arms” club of nations, without the obvious admission of external help. The current rhetoric and “hawks_doves” exhibition that is being played out, is following similar monouvers that occured between “Pakistan_India” in the late 90’s.
Open your eyes!, India did not get Nuclear weapons independantly, they relied on allies. Iran is following up with the “tit for tat” scenario.
Iran has the problem of “announcing” its nuclear capability to the world, therefore it is “Going_through_motions” of Energy/Nuclear needs, and rights, purely to deviate their “actual” source of weapons.
Make no bones about it, if Iran had Nuclear capability during the Iran/Iraq war, we would not be sitting here now,online..discussing scientific issues (and the odd political/religious issue).
Since Sept 11th 01, things have changed drastically, for instance Pakistan are basically on their final “un-written” warning, if the American president, present or future, gains knowledge of one nuclear nation “arming” another , especially a nation that harbours , hatred on a Grand Universal Scale?
As a P.S, Bin Laden is recently thought to have evaded capture by leaving the borders of Pakistan/Afghanastan, and is thought to be sheilded within country bordering Iraq and Afghanastan, you guessed it Iran.
On a note of detonation of devices of certain height/impact?
Take SEPTEMBER 11th 2001, five planes containing five “primed” neuclear weapons?
This did not happen, but it does not take much thinking that this is a grave probability of the future?
Without America and its united allies involvment in securing a general concensus of order, I honestly think I would not be expressing freedom of opinions at this very moment. Whilst I do not agree with certain (american) factors, I never take world events at face value. Truth is really stranger than fiction, and when it comes to nuclear weapons, it is better to ask of a nation:Show us you do not have nuclear weapons?..than to pthe headlines of Boom..they DID had nuclear weapons!
Belizian, a few nuclear bombs would not destroy ”the enemy”. The Iranians know this and I don’t understand why the US doesn’t see this.
As I wrote earlier, the Iranians can win any war against the US by destroying the oil installations in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain using their missiles. That would take just 15 minutes.
Count Iblis, you make a most insightful point. Furthermore, I would like to build upon this point and boldly make the following comment. Our real enemy is not Iran. Our real enemy is our addiction to Middle East Oil. As a nation, we are most definitely behaving like petroleum addicts. Perhaps a twelve-step-plan especially designed for petro-addicts might be of some help.
Count Iblis,
Correct. That is why 1) I don’t recommend nuclear bunker busters. 2) I hold regime change via fomented and air-supported internal revolution to be essential. [If the changed regime is sufficiently sane, its possession of nukes will not necessarily be a problem.]
No Joy,
While it is technically true that Iran’s possession of a nuke does not mean that there is a 100% chance that they will use it against us, the President would be unwise not to assume that they will. Ahmadinejad’s head genuinely appears to be full of millenarian visions of a glorious apocalypse that will usher the return of the 12th Imam. It truly seems that he sees himself as the instrument of Allah that will bring this about. Sure, there’s a chance that it’s all an act. But do you want to bet New York City, Washington D.C, or Los Angeles on that? Let’s be conservative and suppose that there’s only a 10% that they’ll “clandestinely” nuke a U.S. city (by passing the bomb to terrorist surrogates). The corresponding 2% chance that an American city will be destroyed and rendered uninhabitable for decades (if not hundreds of years) is too huge to be ignored. [If there was a 2% chance that your car would explode within a year, I don’t think that you’d blithely continue to drive it.] [Sorry about the incompetent numbering and lettering of my hasty previous post.]
Jacques Distler,
The regime in Iraq has been changed successfully. As a consequence freedom has risen there. Perennially hostile factions are now free to attack each other. We saw this before, when oppression was reduced in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Eventually, one faction will win (almost certainly the side that we support). Please remember that even relatively homogeneous countries like the United States and England experienced all out civil wars — far greater strife than the current situation in Iraq. [Iraq seems most problematic from the frame of reference offered by the Western news media, which is sensationalist, ahistorical, selective by agenda, focused on the moment, plagued by a herd mentality, and obviously biased.]
Jacques – the statement does apply to the other NPT signatories with substantial
programs, and that is the problem. The US has effectively destroyed the NPT by
backing Iran into a corner and rewarding India.
And with the threats against Iran the “negative security assurance” of the NPT is gone, so there is no point in staying in the NPT.
My reading of the globalsecurity.org summary is that Iran has done lab tests of extracting Pu from irradiated uranium using their small lab reactors, so they have in fact closed the cycle, as they announced.
The Pu metal engineering is just not that hard, it is not trivial, but it is solved, with lots of hints in the literature, and probably some hard advice available for a price.
Main point of my original post was to seek a distinction between the long term issue, that Iran is within ~ 10 years of having a full fuel cycle without nuclear power input at some stage, which can lead to a steady bomb production line if desired; and on the other hand Iran’s fairly evident urgent desire for deterrent, which they have a window for doing right now, at the expense of open break with the IAEA and probably the Russians. But they won’t need them any more.
And Iran’s original ambition to sell their oil and have nuclear for baseline main electricity is very sensible, but they by now will resent not being trusted, and with the “axis-of-evil” speech will figure that getting a bomb is an overriding imperative. Trying to influence the Iranian elections was also dumb.
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
We certainly agree on that.
We probably also agree that they screwed up the NPT, without first having found a workable alternative.
Iran was (and, in more competent hands, maybe still would be) a manageable problem.
I generally agree that, over a 10 year time-frame, Iran easily has the capability of developing nuclear weapons. In the short term, however, I’m a lot more dubious about the scenario (outlined in your post) by which Iran could obtain a bomb (or two) rather quickly. A lot of iffy propositions have to be true in order to succeed, and they won’t get a second chance.
Belizean wrote:
Freedom is truly on the March!
And, flush from our resounding success in Iraq, we can go and spread the good fortune to their neighbour to the East!
Actually, since you seem to have forgotten, it is the faction closely allied with Iran that is on top of the political pyramid. And, without Iran’s tacit support, Iraq’s descent into chaos would be even more swift and bloody than it already is.
From a lot of perspectives, the US-India deal is not a “reward” to India.
Here is one such:
http://www.asianage.com/viewarticle2.asp?newsid=144777