Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? | 194 comments (194 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: The Science Angle (4.00 / 3)
Iran is full of shit when it proclaims that its nuclear program is all nice and peacefull. It's plain false (or the Iranians have really no clue what they are putting their money into). Their program is for military use.

Those who proclaim that the sky is falling are also full of shit. Iran is nowhere near having a bomb. At least 10 years away, or, assuming that it throws at it every bit of money and resources it has (and starve its population to death), makes no attempt to hide the program from the rest of the planet and get every technical detail right on first try, a strict minimum of 5 years.

This seems well said, and many agree with this point of view.  I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to take it on.  But,,,,,,one's intelligence is never perfect, and gaining consensus on an opinion will be difficult--so you'll have to have some probability range around this.  Like for example, they can accomplish this under cover in 5 years--maybe people would take that as a worst case option.  I think Colman is looking for a problem statement like that, so we can move on to "now what do we do?"
by wchurchill on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 02:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The Science Angle (4.00 / 2)
The 5/10 years estimate deserves an explanation.

The 10 years seems to be the general consensus that floats around most experts and intelligence agencies, assuming Iran maintains its program on a steady clip and doesn't hit major technology snags. From what I understand, it's based on what is known of the current state of Iran's nuclear program, reasonable assumptions on resources and know-how, and comparisons with other military nuclear programs in the past. Iranians seem to be serious, competent and well-organized and there is no reason to believe they won't get there if they are decided to get there. But it's going to take time and they are not there yet.

The 5 years lower bound is not really an estimate but more of a standard cover-your-ass disclaimer, based on the 3 years it took to the Manhattan project from its founding to building weapons:
- On one hand, most of the science and technology that the Manhattan project had to invent is now in the public domain.
- On the other hand, the amount of resources and talents the US threw in this effort was absolutely staggering, mind-blowing, earth-shattering (throw in any superlative you want, it deserves it). There's nothing in human history that compares to that, save, may be the race to the Moon.

A third-world country has a strong head start on the Oppenheimer team and doesn't need to reinvent the science behind the bomb. But it cannot replicate the resources. So counting the amount of time to build the nuclear piles, the facilities to reprocess the fuel and extract plutonium, do the research for the weapons, and get the whole thing running, it all comes to about 5 years.
by Francois in Paris on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 10:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The Science Angle (none / 0)
The latest US NIE seems to put it at 10 years, not 5 (nor 5-10), due to the problems Nomad mentioned. (Not that I believe there is proof that a nuke is the end goal, just sayin'.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 11:55:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The Science Angle (none / 0)
That's why it's important to stress what the 5 years figure really is : a CYA absolute worst case, not a realistic assessment. I was being negligent there.
by Francois in Paris on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 12:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? | 194 comments (194 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: