Who says that they are building bigger centrifuges? Are there no other reasons for building them?

IAEA has released very little substantial materials besides their resolutions on this matter, but the press officer has released tentative hints. We'll have to wait on the IAEA report early March to see what's left of this. Note that the press isn't helpful on the issue as the focus is on enrichment only. Never mind that there's a difference between civilian and military use. Yet now everything that links to enrichment is Bad. Chalk that one up to bad press reporting.

According to the opinion of people working at ECN Petten, one of the two locations in the Netherlands with nuclear technology, bigger centrifuges are only meant for nuclear weapons.

My understanding of the process is that the difference between enriching uranium to a low level (for energy) and a high level (for weaponry) is simply a matter of scale -- if they are currently enriching uranium to a low level (which they claim that they are) the technology they already have can produce highly enriched uranium, it will just take a lot longer.

The attraction of bigger/more centrifuges is being able to get the uranium to that point faster.

Le début de l'enrichissement a été constaté mardi par une équipe d'inspecteurs de l'AIEA, qui s'est rendue sur le site pilote de Natanz, au sud-est de Téhéran. "Notre équipe a vu que les Iraniens avaient commencé à introduire de l'hexafluorure d'uranium (un gaz) dans des centrifugeuses non reliées en cascade", affirme cette source.

A team of IAEA inspectors, who went to the Natanz experimental site, noted Tuesday that enrichment had begun. "Our team saw that the Iranians had started to introduce uranium hexafluoride (a gas) into non-cascaded centrifuges", said this source.

Le fait que cette manipulation concerne des centrifugeuses isolées, et non reliées en cascade, signifie que l'Iran n'a pas commencé à procéder à un enrichissement d'uranium à grande échelle - procédure indispensable à la production des composantes d'une arme nucléaire, et chose pour laquelle l'Iran aurait encore besoin de plusieurs années, selon des experts. <snip>

The fact that this experiment concerns separate centrifuges, not linked in cascade, means that Iran has not started the process of large-scale uranium enrichment -- indispensable to production of nuclear weapon components, and a process which will take Iran several years, according to experts.

Une délégation iranienne est attendue le 20 février à Moscou pour de nouvelles négociations sur la proposition formulée par le Kremlin de faire enrichir en Russie tout l'uranium dont Téhéran aurait besoin pour un programme nucléaire civil. Les Européens et les Américains soutiennent cette initiative russe, qui n'a cependant, à ce jour, recueilli que des réactions en demi-teinte côté iranien.

An Iranian delegation is expected to be in Moscow on 20th February for fresh negociations on the Kremlin's offer to enrich all the uranium Tehran would need for a civil nuclear programme. The Europeans and the Americans support this Russian initiative, which has only received, up to now, half-hearted reactions from the Iranian side.

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.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about the exact process, and was pretty much hoping my post wouldn't get too much flak, as I would've to bail... Your post is extremely useful and very much appreciated.

The plutonium track & slow-burn reactor was completely new to me; most of what I have informed myself about was on the uranium enrichment controversy.

So, it just doesn't make any sense except if they want to control the level of enrichment, not targeting lightly enriched uranium for light-water reactors, but ultra-high enriched uranium for nukes.

That's similar to my own conclusion pretty much based on what I knew... The plutonium angle adds a whole other dimension. Now it's no wonder at all why the IAEA is at high alert.

The other bit, which I didn't want to put here since I know even less about it, was that the Iranian yellowcake of U3O8 is not pure grade enough caused by contamination of Be(?)-oxydes, which has a similar atomic weight as 235-U. But this falls into the categorie debunking the warmongers...

To give a criticism from another angle than afew, this has been the publicly stated policy of Iran since at least 1992. You may argue that it is not economic, but such an argument doesn't convince me given my knowledge of the economic irrationalism of another regime. (Hungary was supposed to become a land of steel, altough neither iron ores nor demand was up to it. Later, a grand programme to build lignite-fired power plants was started, only there wasn't enough lignite and mining it was enormously expensive.)

Iran claimed that the Arak reactor is for medical radioisotope production. The issue is that Iran already has a zero-power research reactor in Esfahan under IAEA control but is not using it actively, so their claim about the Arak reactor doesn't hold.

I don't get your argument. What does the current non-use of research reactors have to do with the use of one from 2014 on? And, as said above, as Iran wants to control the full fuel cycle, would building an own reactor with own technology and own-produced fuel, rather than just use Chinese-supplied technology and fuel, be part of that? Especially as the HWZPR is small and not fitted with hot cells.

This also brings me to the question of timing. Arak would not be ready by 2014 - and the EU-3+USA dismissed an Irani offer to suspend centrifuge enrichment for two years, provocately demanding a 10-year moratorium instead (let everything built rust, yeah that's acceptable), as well as Ahmadineyad's offer to let the enrichment facilities be run as joint facilities with foreign provate companies. Thus neither of your two fears would have had to be an issue now, or anytime when there is IAEA oversight. In my opinion, we are seeing a rush towards war, this time with wider European help (government change in Germany comes handy, and Chirac was always a cynic enough).

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Of course I'm seeing a pattern, and I've hinted myself that I feel there are warmonger drums being banged. It's just not the main issue I'm addressing. There is propaganda from two sides and right now I'm not going to take any side as the truth. My problem lies specifically with the nuclear facilities of Iran and there it ends.

You acknowledged that the beryllium issue was false.

Where did I do that? I asked for confirmation whether Be-contamination of the hex was true. In what way do you mean it is false? I don't understand at all. Elaborate, please.

In this context, one possible target gaining deterrence may reduce the threat of a nuclear war.

Blech. I can see your reasoning, but I completely disagree. In Chris Kulczycki's diary on the Culture of Guns, you see that lesser weapons around result in smaller numbers of accidents. I'd go with that on this issue as well.

I find the hyporcricy of nuclear nations equally disturbing, but I would go never so far as to knead it into a counter-argument for an increasing nuclear arsenal. I can see why people would use it, but I find it utterly self-destructive. To me, this has always been a two pronged fight: demote the nuclear use in other countries and promote the disbanding of nuclear weapons in those countries which have it.