The Iranian regime has been very clever in its development of a nuclear weapons program. Using a horizontal model where they first lined up all the necessary “ingredients” for advanced nuclear weapons –heavy water plants, experimental reactors, plutonium refining plants and uranium enrichment facilities — means that they can shoot directly for a thermonuclear device instead of toying around with a Fat Man or Little Boy like we did in the 1940s. North Korea’s program was vertical, doing just enough to create some sort of functional device. It was a dud. Iran’s will not be.
This is bad news. It means that as soon as Iran successfully tests a bomb (if they even test one, remember the first time we detonated a uranium gun-barrel type bomb was over Hiroshima, so reliable was the design) they will immediately be able to mate the weapon to one of their Shahab missiles, capable of reaching Israel. If Iran develops a solid-fueled rocket as well, they’ll have a potential thermonuclear launch-on-warning capability just like the five members of the Security Council.
-
« Home
-
About This Post
- Written by
- November 6th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
-
Categories
Comments 32
This a bit overwrought? How did it get from experiments….. to just like the members of the Security Council?
November 6th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Did you real the full article, or even the above excerpt closely? He answers your question directly. Indeed, that’s the whole point of the piece.
FYI – Noonan has been following the intelligence very closely, and is fully aware of the obstacles on the path between program to deliverable device. He is arguing that the timeline may be significantly foreshortened – and incidentally that the IAEA believes itself in possession of what would be indisputable evidence that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons program.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
I was intrigued by your post and went and read a bunch of stuff, the Guardian original and most of what I could find.
I’m not really sure that what I read added up to the claim in the final paragraph posted. I couldn’t find anything explaining how far along the Iranians might be in producing a more sophisticated weapon or if it would be much of a shorter process to fit such a weapon on their existing rockets.
Is John Noonan an authority on such things?
November 6th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Here’s a capsule bio from ‘07:
Not a nuclear expert, but obviously well-versed in military matters. Beyond that, he’s been following the story closely. Plus his baseball letter ought to seal the deal for you, I’d think.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I’d say the final paragraph may slightly overstate the evidence presented – and then it may not. It tends to assume that the multiple elements of the Iranian program are all maturing on schedule. At a minimum, it would seem to shorten the potential time-line very significantly. Determining whether it shortens the actual time-line to the same extent, or close to it, would require more information, but even the potential or any uncertainty about it is game-changing all on its own, since someone determined to prevent the actuality can’t assume the best.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Fusion bomb tech is 50 years old and solid rocket tech is almost the same. Iran has the industrial base, resources to buy overseas help and equipment, and the scientific and engineering people to develop the things. The only question is how fast.
An interesting article. I had formerly assumed a simple straight line development path. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised to find that I was pretty dense concerning this sort of thing. Almost as dense as all the expert pundits and analysts who never brought up the possibility of parallel development.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Thanks for the bio, CK.
He very clearly goes beyond what the evidence offered supports, but what seems speculative to me may well be obvious to someone with a decent level of understanding.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
@ Sully:
I think the question was in how much help they were and will be able to buy.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
@ fuster:
Well, that’s why it’s “gamechanger watch” rather than “ohmigod the game’s changed.”
November 6th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
What is Iran’s motivation? The danger to Ahmadinejad’s regime comes from within the country, from protestors to his dishonest elections. Why is Iran tempting Israel to launch a pre-emptive raid? Why has Iran tempted the world to impose sanctions against it?
Let us go back to Rafsanjani’s 2001 speech about destroying Israel. The fact that these statements were part of a very long oration on lots of subjects does not negate what he said. Iran wants to join the 9/11 terrorists (and perhaps the Fort Hood terrorist) and do what is virtuous: die in a jihad while killing Jews.
Iran does not share a border with Israel. Iran and Israel have no quarrel–except over Israel’s existence. Iranians are not Arabs and have no Arab allies. Iranians are Shiites and Ahmadinejad hates Sunnis. The Palestinians are both Arabs and Sunnis. Iran isn’t interested in a Palestinian state, except as an excuse to attack Israel and become a martyr.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:04 am
@ fuster:
When it comes to design assistance they can buy anything they want or need since nothing tangible needs to be shipped. But they do need homegrown physicists under their control to evaluate what they’re getting since their opposition would want to set up sophisticated ops to sell them designs that would be dangerous to build.
It would be perfect, for instance to sell them a design for a bomb that would go critical on assembly or when placed in a missile silo of a certain type of design or whatever. Scratch one design team and one build facility.
More subtle would be to sell them a crude design whose characteristics hint at how to make what seems a much better design that does the above, since everybody is susceptible to the not invented here syndrome.
There have been lots of publicized little accidents like what I’m talking about. No big ones have been publicized but that doesn’t mean they aren’t possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident
November 7th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I think you are right, George.
It should take only one look at Ahamydinnerjacket’s idiotic, cocky and ignorant smile to see that what’s going on inside is just plain evil.
This presents what might be an insoluble problem: Even if it were possible to behead the snake by taking him out (along with many of the worst mullahs), that would create martyrs to rally the next 10 generations of holy warriors.
If it were not for Mister Peanut, it might be possible to stand with Iranian dissenters, but Mister Peanut is what he is, Mister Peanut.
It looks like GW Bush’s Putin blunder was not nearly as dangerous as the 0bami’s dedication to engaging the Muslim World.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:53 am
The deal with this is that it’s been known for a while (since at least 2006), it confirms Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and it means Iran’s prospects for developing a working nuke are not so comfortably far in the future that failure to interdict the process is anything but irresponsible.
There is no headway to be made here by arguing that Noonan “exaggerates.” I suspect, from his tone, that Noonan didn’t know about this before he wrote his latest blog item. Others have been writing about it for months. I tried to find again a technical analysis from a few months ago that addressed the two-point implosion approach specifically, and analyzed Iran’s likely challenges with it. Couldn’t locate that piece quickly.
At any rate, instead of “Iran will immediately be able to mate the [nuclear] weapon to one of their Shahab missiles,” it would be more accurate to say that the two-point implosion work in question will accelerate the timetable for mating a nuclear warhead to a missile. It categorically will; that’s not subject to interpretation. Getting the right bang from a lighter warhead makes it more likely Iran can put it on a missile quickly, once it’s been proven to work. The Shahab can already carry the load that would be typical for such a nuclear warhead.
The only quibble I would offer to CKM’s “gamechanger” expression is that the game was changed some time ago. The West has just been hair-splitting and procrastinating ever since.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
@ J.E. Dyer:
The uncertainty – far beyond my pseudo-expertise – would be the likely or inevitable distance between having the technology to right-size a warhead and actually right-sizing a warhead.
As for “gamechanger”: Don’t blame me, I only blog here. I use the term because it was Ø’s own when pressed on the meaning of Iranian nuclear ambitions, but I recognize that it leaves open which game or games are the ones most subject to radical and disruptive change. Every country is playing multiple games, which together may add up to bigger games, which in turn may or may not come together in even bigger games.
So, an old play in an old game to someone like yourself might finally require a brand new move in a different game – a political or diplomatic or military game whose “scoreboard” is potentially much more difficult for diverse politicians or their constituencies to ignore.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:27 am
@ CK MacLeod:
I’m always up for hoisting OSlash on the petard of his own buzztalk. My comment above was directed more at Smidge’s attempt to slice a hair in ten equal parts. It’s meaningless that Noonan may understate the time factor involved in getting a cleverly-designed warhead onto the Shahab missile. What’s important is that Iran is, in fact, pursuing nuclear weapons, and has already done some key work on weaponization. That by itself is both enough to make decisions on, and enough to condemn the inaction of the current administration and its predecessor.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@ J.E. Dyer:
That wasn’t my intent, Kid. What i was trying to say was that I couldn’t find anything much in the original report or elsewhere indicating the extent (or level of success) of the experimentation.
If you find anything enlightening and within the comprehension of the average Smidge…..
November 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
You wanna wait for the mushroom cloud before agreeing there’s cause for worry, Fus?
November 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
@ Zoltan Newberry:Z, I’ve thought that there’s cause for worry with the Iranians for thirty years.
That ain’t the point.
And there’s more likely to be a whole big bunch of explosions long before it gets to the point of mushroom clouds.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
@ Zoltan Newberry:
It won’t matter a whole lot whether someone is worrying or not worrying when mushroom clouds sprout.
What matters is whether we’re going to do something about the worry if we experience it. And we’re not, which is unfortunate; but that is the way it is. The biggest tragedy of the Iraq muddle is that it has foreclosed the possibility of action against Iran, at least by us.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:41 am
I think I know what you’re getting at, but there’s nothing inherent in the Iraq situation that truly forecloses action against Iran. It’s a matter of will – and willingness to absorb casualties, uncertainties, and economic effects – not theoretical capabilities.
The implication – which I don’t accept as a final determination – would be that our civilization had only enough spirit left to launch a couple of expeditionary adventures before calling it a day and inviting our enemies to make the game more interesting. You might even wonder if on some psychological level we want or need a more worthy opponent to arise more than we want to prevent one from doing so. It’s lonely at the top. Without fundamentally altering the character of American democracy, in other words without changing who we are, it will remain impossible for us to run the world to best military advantage. So we may soon have to store up sacrifices again instead.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Didn’t Saddam make it imperative that we go after Iraq first?
I have often wondered about the Saudi hold on us. Both 0 and W have paid obeisance to the royal clan.
Now comes Iran, clearly a far more immediate and serious threat to Israel than she is to us. Count on Russia to play her southern neighbor like a drum to boggle both European and North American minds. This might make space for China and her ally, Kim, to force Japan to cower. China is also having more room to broaden her relations with Africa and Latin America.
The American Presidency currently makes all rational planning for real contingencies moot. Mister Peanut will kick the can down the road and focus on securing his next term. Any and all real threats will be casually brushed aside midst hour upon hour of empty rhetoric.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:44 am
@ Zoltan Newberry:
No, he didn’t make it imperative.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:51 am
@ CK MacLeod:
9/11 spurred the horse and he ran hard for a few years but his rider didn’t thoroughly trample the enemy while he was eager. Now that old horse is a bit tired and bored. So he’s in denial about the seriousness of his situation, and he’s a bit puzzled because no one wants to frankly identify the enemy.
Unfortunately, based on their record, our enemies will spur that horse again, and then he’ll be ready to exert himself again. Hopefully he won’t be carrying so much weight of political correctness by then that all he can do is walk to a halal slaughterhouse.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Perhaps I fail to understand, but I haven’t noticed any timidity in identifying enemies.
What do you mean?
November 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The real enemy is the ideology and the most dangerous opponents are the teachers of that ideology, not the deranged individuals turned into weapons and used as tools by those teachers using that ideology.
The Saudi Prince financing the production and distribution of tens of millions of extremist versions of the Quran and funding thousands of Imams who teach literalism is much more dangerous than the Talibani carrying that book and a gun. That Prince and his like have been busy concentrating on winning the war in Europe and here in our homeland while we’ve been busy winning battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To paraphrase some judge or other I’m too lazy to look up, tolerance is not a suicide pact.
Here’s Army Chief of Staff George Casey a couple of days after 41 of his soldiers were viciously attacked by a fundamentalist Muslim nutcase whom his organization ignored for years because folks who saw the warning signs were afraid to be seen as biased if they pushed too hard: “I think the speculation (on Hasan’s Islamic roots) could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers,”
http://news.aol.com/article/alleged-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-malik/758172?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Falleged-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-malik%2F758172
November 9th, 2009 at 6:35 am
@ Sully:
I agree with you about the Saudis but agree a bit less about our being reticent to consider them enemies.
That might have been the case once, but now it’s more that we’re not yet ready to consider them as criminals and take up arms against them.
Our efforts are instead directed at getting them to modify their behavior and for all the usual reasons that we do business and/or ally ourselves with criminal regimes.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:46 am
@ fuster:
Funny kind of enemies fuster. Close as I can tell there are about 20,000 Saudi students here on scholarship provided by the same government that helpfully provides free Qurans and radical mosques to make sure they don’t go native, so to speak.
The good news is that there probably aren’t a lot of them studying nuclear physics and genetic engineering because the Iranians studying under scholarships provided by their friendly government probably fill most of those spots.
It’s one thing to do business and ally oneself with a criminal regime; quite another to do business and ally oneself with a regime whose openly avowed criminal purpose is the upsetting of your own regime and forced submission of most of your citizens.
But I could have this wrong. It may be nothing new. Perhaps there were 20,000 Soviet students studying in the U.S. and regularly attending Marxist education sessions under subsidized commisars from their home country while communism was still a lively threat.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:30 am
@ Sully:
You could try looking up how many Iraqi graduate students were in this country studying hard science in the 80s and 90s.
You’ll probably come across most of the top people in Iraq’s ABC programs.
On the other hand, our openly avowed purpose is exporting our revolutionary values.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
@ Sully:
Two big differences:
1) We don’t recognize Islamism as the same kind of threat that we believed Communism was – whether we should or not is a different discussion;
2) SA is an ally – really – chiefly in remaining pliable on using its oil reserves to smooth over major price/supply disruptions, additionally by providing a counterweight to Iran and other de-stabilizing forces in the Gulf.
Obviously, we tolerate a lot of stuff from SA that we wouldn’t if we didn’t care about good relations. Ditto for China.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
@ fuster:
So you’re saying:
The fact that we were arguably sharpening the knives meant to cut our throats in the 80’s and 90’s is an argument for continuing to sharpen knives meant for that purpose?
And, ya seen one ideology ya seen em all? The Saudis, along with virtually every other Muslim country (even Afghanistan, whose constitution we had a hand in creating), certainly don’t see it that way. You can test this in a non-sectarian manner by going to any one of them and yelling the Arabic for “Allah ain’t great” within hearing of a policeman. In fact, you had best do it within hearing of a policeman since that may limit the consequences to a beating and a cell.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
1. You’re right, we don’t and we won’t til we get a real shock. Maybe a nuke in NY or LA or Chicago will turn that tough trick. But I’m sure many organizations and government agencies have disaster plans in place so they can start running “move on” and “don’t overreact” ads the day after.
2. SA sells oil at the best price it can get because it needs the money. They act as a counterweight to the more outspoken killers because they’re targets too. They need us far more than we need them.
We tolerate their crap because they buy our politicians, of which I never counted the Bushes as special cases.
China is not insignificant, but it presents a pale shadow of the threat posed by Saudi Princes feeding the worldwide jihad ideology, which is the prophet’s quite clearly stated original ideology, and thus hard to fight precisely because we foolishly treat it as a religion rather than a supremacist movement.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
@ Sully:No, what I was saying is that the west educates the bulk of the scientists from the Gulf for the same reason the the Gulf countries provide the west with oil.
It’s in our best interests and in theirs, except when it isn’t.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Post a Comment