You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US: Iran could have nuclear bomb in four years
2006-10-04
Washington - The top U.S. intelligence official says Iran could have a nuclear weapon within four to nine years, but that it still has time to turn away from that path. Speaking in his top floor office overlooking the Potomac River, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte says Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons and will have them soon if not deterred from its current course.

"We do not have any fast facts that could demonstrate to you a particular date by which we are certain Iran will have a nuclear weapon," he said. "But yes, it is our judgment, based on all the information available to us, that Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and, secondly, that they are on a path to achieve that within the next several years. The estimate that we have made is that somewhere between 2010 and 2015 is when we judge Iran is likely to have a nuclear weapon if it continues on its current course."
Reminder: the intelligence community said in 1947 that the USSR could have an atomic bomb in 5 to 10 years. The Soviets exploded one the following year.
Negroponte says that even though Iran does not yet have any nuclear weapons capability, evidence that it is moving in that direction is persuasive. "You have to have insights into intention, you have to look at past behavior," he added. "I mean, among the factors we consider in the case of Iran is that in the past they've had a secret military program until it was revealed. We know that for 20 or 30 years Iran has been interested in acquiring nuclear capability. You can judge from their procurement practices. There is a whole variety of indicators that you can look at to get some sense of exactly what the intentions of a country are."

Asked if the intelligence failure on Iraq complicates convincing people of Iran's intentions, Negroponte admits that people do raise that issue, but adds that the intelligence system is much improved. "We have done quite a bit of work on 'lessons learned' from the situation in Iraq, different mechanisms and procedures to improve the quality of our intelligence collection and analysis and our judgments," he added. "And, secondly, I think our principal partners and friends in the international community share with us exactly the same concern about Iran's intentions."
Posted by:Steve White

#9  All in all just how many "unofficial" nuclear weapons programs are out there? And how many nations if they really wanted to, could get the bomb?

The last time I actually heard anything about this there were something over 36 countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons programs "unofficially" - ie they had programs that could be quickly turned to nuclear weapons manufacture (or within a reasonable period of time).

The list of countries that could get a weapon "quickly" varies according to what you might call the definition of "quickly", but, as I recall, includes, but is not limited to,

Japan
South Korea
Germany
South Africa
Brazil
Canada
Australia
Ukraine

Essentially, any country that maintains an active nuclear reactor or nuclear reactor research program could potentially have the capability of converting such research programs to nuclear weapons programs.

From Wikipedia,

The U.S. Department of Energy initiated a program in 1978 to develop the technical means to convert research reactors from the using highly enriched uranium to the use of low enriched uranium, in support of its nonproliferation policy. [1] By that time the U.S. had supplied research reactors and highly enriched uranium to 41 countries as part of its Atoms for Peace program.

Also, from the same Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_reactor) is the comment that there are currently 283 research reactors operating.

The list possibly includes Syria (they have an advanced exchange program involving nuclear and particle physics and physicists with the west and, the last I saw, were looking at building a rather large "international" accelerator facility),

The list used to include Libya (but somebody apparently "saw the light" and it was not an air/ground burst),

I just recently posted that I seemed to recall that Japan was once thought to have been able to put together all the components for a nuclear device within 10 days.

It should also be noted that power sources used to generate medical isotopes and power sources for research beamlines, while called other things (likely for politically-correct reasons) are, or could be easily converted to be, nuclear reactors by any conventional definition - which means there's a buttload of potential reactor sources out there).

Also note - there's a process called "boosted fission", which I know very little about, which requires an active neutron source and can be used to boost uranium from natural to enriched to highly enriched to weapons grade fuel - and, according to several sources, can also lead to fissionable yields in low-grade sources.

Now, I'm no expert, and the experts can feel free to correct any of the above if I actually am wrong, but this is what I know and have read (and some of it's a shock to me as well - though it explains a helluva' lot of stuff up here at LBNL).


Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-10-04 22:29  

#8  All in all just how many "unofficial" nuclear weapons programs are out there? And how many nations if they really wanted to, could get the bomb?
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2006-10-04 18:49  

#7  LOL Bobby.

In Iran i feel the people want a brighter future so once the mullahs go this country will be ok.

My bigger worry is Pakistan!!!!

Posted by: Cheregum Crelet7867   2006-10-04 10:18  

#6  We'll know for sure how long it took when one is detonated the USA or Israel.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-10-04 10:13  

#5  The Iranian ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech and walked out into the lobby where he met the United States ambassador John Bolton. They exchanged pleasantries and as they walked the Iranian said, "You know I have just one question about what I have seen in America."

Ambassador Bolton said, "Well, anything I can do to help you, I will."

The Iranian whispered, "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there is Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, and Sulu who is Chinese, but no Iranians. My son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Muslims on Star Trek."

Bolton laughed, leaned toward the Iranian ambassador and whispered back, "It's because it takes place in the future."
Posted by: Bobby   2006-10-04 07:56  

#4  So, it was - what - six months ago? that these experts said Iran was ten years away.

So in six months, they advanced six years? I don't like that math.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-10-04 07:01  

#3  Let's play it safe and bomb the crap out of them tomorrow, just to be sure.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-10-04 05:38  

#2  Technically, I suppose 99.44% = "could".
Posted by: gorb   2006-10-04 04:38  

#1  Bottom Line, the Administration is ready to pass this "problem" to the next President, while "W" continues to nest egg the Iraq problem.
Posted by: smn   2006-10-04 01:54  

00:00