China Sent Enriched Uranium to Pakistan, Can it Now Teach Pakistan How to Read and Write? 11/13/2009
According to corroborated reports from A.Q. Khan's personal accounts, China sent weapons-grade uranium to Pakistan in 1982.
Horrified by India's test of a nuclear bomb in 1974, Mao Zedong and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (Benazir's father) met in 1976 to discuss cooperation in nuclear arms. A.Q. Khan, who gained access to European methods for nuclear enrichment while working at a Dutch centrifuge manufacturer, passed expertise to China, which had nuclear bombs but was frustrated by its slow pace of enrichment.
Pakistan in return received warhead designs, 15 tons of uranium hexaflouride (feeder for centrifuges) and enough weapons-grade uranium for 2 atom bombs.
As Khan boasted in a report for Pakistani intelligence:
"The speed of our work and our achievements surprised our worst enemies and adversaries and the West stood helplessly by to see a Third World nation, unable even to produce bicycle chains or sewing needles, mastering the most advanced nuclear technology in the shortest possible span of time..."
Yes, by spying on the Dutch and capitalizing on Chinese fears of India. But what does it mean to be a country that can produce nuclear weapons, but can't teach half of its population how to read and write? Would it not be better to surprise the world by creating a modern, stable society? Despite Pakistan's enormous pride for its nuclear capability, I don't think that many Third World countries envy Pakistan today.
Horrified by India's test of a nuclear bomb in 1974, Mao Zedong and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (Benazir's father) met in 1976 to discuss cooperation in nuclear arms. A.Q. Khan, who gained access to European methods for nuclear enrichment while working at a Dutch centrifuge manufacturer, passed expertise to China, which had nuclear bombs but was frustrated by its slow pace of enrichment.
Pakistan in return received warhead designs, 15 tons of uranium hexaflouride (feeder for centrifuges) and enough weapons-grade uranium for 2 atom bombs.
As Khan boasted in a report for Pakistani intelligence:
"The speed of our work and our achievements surprised our worst enemies and adversaries and the West stood helplessly by to see a Third World nation, unable even to produce bicycle chains or sewing needles, mastering the most advanced nuclear technology in the shortest possible span of time..."
Yes, by spying on the Dutch and capitalizing on Chinese fears of India. But what does it mean to be a country that can produce nuclear weapons, but can't teach half of its population how to read and write? Would it not be better to surprise the world by creating a modern, stable society? Despite Pakistan's enormous pride for its nuclear capability, I don't think that many Third World countries envy Pakistan today.
Add Comment
2007 NIE Redux 11/08/2009
Thomas Fingar
When November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate came out, it completely overturned the standing logic on Iran's nuclear program by suggesting that the Iranians had actually stopped work on a nuclear device in 2003. At the time, most of the media were too distracted with this revelation to dig into the politics behind NIE's curious release.
Two years later Thomas Fingar, who was the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the time, is talking about who ordered the NIE's findings leaked and why:
"This example is drawn from the highly contentious 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. It became contentious, in part, because the White House instructed the Intelligence Community to release an unclassified version of the report’s key judgments but declined to take responsibility for ordering its release."
See the full speech here and Joshua Pollack's analysis here.
Two years later Thomas Fingar, who was the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the time, is talking about who ordered the NIE's findings leaked and why:
"This example is drawn from the highly contentious 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. It became contentious, in part, because the White House instructed the Intelligence Community to release an unclassified version of the report’s key judgments but declined to take responsibility for ordering its release."
See the full speech here and Joshua Pollack's analysis here.
Erdogan Speaks to the WSJ 10/05/2009
Watch the interview here- on Iran, Israel, and Armenia.
Depressingly, Erdogan still talks about Iran as if its program is peaceful, and keeps changing the subject from Iran to Gaza.
For those who are seduced by such facile slights of hand, Gaza has as much to do with Iran's nuclear program as it does with North Korea's. Since Israel attacked Gaza Iran should be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons? If you have a functioning prefrontal cortex, then you realize that this leap of logic makes zero sense.
For those who then continue to complain about Israel's nukes (the more common complaint), why not complain about Pakistan's nukes? Or India's? If you are against all nukes- then that's a rational reason to be against Israel's program. But then you have to be against Iran's too.
One day, Erdogan will wake up next to a nuclear-armed Iran, and suddenly realize that Turkey just lost a ton of (relative) regional power. But, as one American diplomat who worked with Turkey once complained to me, the Turks are experts at cutting off the nose to spite the face. Erdogan's Gaza outburst at Davos made sense politically- it radically improved Turkey's image on the coveted "Arab street" without substantially damaging Israeli ties. But sitting on his hands while Iran gets a bomb- that will have much more serious ramifications.
- Jon
Depressingly, Erdogan still talks about Iran as if its program is peaceful, and keeps changing the subject from Iran to Gaza.
For those who are seduced by such facile slights of hand, Gaza has as much to do with Iran's nuclear program as it does with North Korea's. Since Israel attacked Gaza Iran should be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons? If you have a functioning prefrontal cortex, then you realize that this leap of logic makes zero sense.
For those who then continue to complain about Israel's nukes (the more common complaint), why not complain about Pakistan's nukes? Or India's? If you are against all nukes- then that's a rational reason to be against Israel's program. But then you have to be against Iran's too.
One day, Erdogan will wake up next to a nuclear-armed Iran, and suddenly realize that Turkey just lost a ton of (relative) regional power. But, as one American diplomat who worked with Turkey once complained to me, the Turks are experts at cutting off the nose to spite the face. Erdogan's Gaza outburst at Davos made sense politically- it radically improved Turkey's image on the coveted "Arab street" without substantially damaging Israeli ties. But sitting on his hands while Iran gets a bomb- that will have much more serious ramifications.
- Jon
The War on Drugs has a lot in common with efforts against nuclear proliferation.
Nuclear technology offers the potential to power the world without contributing to global warming. Radioactive isotopes are widely used in modern modern medicine for diagnostic purposes and some therapies. But highly enriched uranium holds the power to destroy the world.
Similarly, drugs have both positive and negative applications. Take opium for instance. Morphine, an opium derivative, is an indispensable drug in medicine- perhaps the most effective painkiller known to man. But when used improperly, opium can ruin people and societies, especially in the "highly enriched" form of heroin.
The problem is that banning drugs like heroin and cocaine don't make them go away, it just pushes them underground, into the hands of unscrupulous individuals. The world drug trade is a lively business controlled by organized crime. Similarly, the world nuclear trade has its own cartels-- imagine A. Q. Khan as Pablo Escobar and Kim Jong Il as Manuel Noriega. Iran has been able to progress so quickly on its nuclear program because it stood on the shoulders of international criminals.
Click "Read More" to Continue ------>
Nuclear technology offers the potential to power the world without contributing to global warming. Radioactive isotopes are widely used in modern modern medicine for diagnostic purposes and some therapies. But highly enriched uranium holds the power to destroy the world.
Similarly, drugs have both positive and negative applications. Take opium for instance. Morphine, an opium derivative, is an indispensable drug in medicine- perhaps the most effective painkiller known to man. But when used improperly, opium can ruin people and societies, especially in the "highly enriched" form of heroin.
The problem is that banning drugs like heroin and cocaine don't make them go away, it just pushes them underground, into the hands of unscrupulous individuals. The world drug trade is a lively business controlled by organized crime. Similarly, the world nuclear trade has its own cartels-- imagine A. Q. Khan as Pablo Escobar and Kim Jong Il as Manuel Noriega. Iran has been able to progress so quickly on its nuclear program because it stood on the shoulders of international criminals.
Click "Read More" to Continue ------>
The Bigger Picture 10/04/2009
As the days go by, the emerging evidence on Iran points to a country that is on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. Iran has already mastered enrichment, and has (at least) the theoretical knowledge of how to create a functioning nuclear implosion device-- necessary for missile-based nuclear warheads.
The worst danger here is not that Iran has reached breakout capacity for making a nuclear bomb. Time won't stop when Iran joins the ranks of nuclear powers-- the Cold War nuclear doctrines still apply to antagonistic nuclear powers, if we assume that Iran's nuke is pointed at Israel.
The biggest problem is that the world non-proliferation scheme is dead, and dealing with aspiring nuclear states on a case-by-case basis is futile. in defiance of the West, Pakistan and North Korea have become nuclear armed states over the past decade, and Iran looks to join them soon. The West needs to create a new framework to control proliferation before a new nuclear arms race begins. Policy recommendations will follow.
The worst danger here is not that Iran has reached breakout capacity for making a nuclear bomb. Time won't stop when Iran joins the ranks of nuclear powers-- the Cold War nuclear doctrines still apply to antagonistic nuclear powers, if we assume that Iran's nuke is pointed at Israel.
The biggest problem is that the world non-proliferation scheme is dead, and dealing with aspiring nuclear states on a case-by-case basis is futile. in defiance of the West, Pakistan and North Korea have become nuclear armed states over the past decade, and Iran looks to join them soon. The West needs to create a new framework to control proliferation before a new nuclear arms race begins. Policy recommendations will follow.
Attempts to discourage or impede Iran's nuclear program have, in large part, failed. Iran today is closer to having a nuclear weapon than ever before. Yet many commentators and politicians in the West are still bound, seemingly by religious conviction, to the very same tactics that have only perpetuated the crisis.
For too long our Iran strategy has oscillated between sanctions, which have a dismal track record and are nearly impossible to enforce, and the explicit threat of violence, an option that the West has neither the stomach nor the resources to implement. It is clear that we need new, imaginative ideas if we intend to gain leverage and ultimately halt Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, our nation's many think tank dwellers and political pundits seem at a loss to provide such ideas. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that the lack of imagination and foresight on the part of Western strategists represents just as pernicious a threat to international security as Iran's ballistic missile and uranium enrichment programs.
Thankfully, there are a few thinkers out there who are still coming up with inventive solutions. Over the next week, we will highlight a series of alternative ideas to address Iran's nuclear ambition.
First up, Geoffrey Forden and John Thomson's proposal to short-circuit Iran's covert uranium enrichment efforts by establishing a multinational uranium enrichment facility hosted by the Iranians in exchange for Tehran's acceptance of expanded inspection protocols.
More after the jump --->
For too long our Iran strategy has oscillated between sanctions, which have a dismal track record and are nearly impossible to enforce, and the explicit threat of violence, an option that the West has neither the stomach nor the resources to implement. It is clear that we need new, imaginative ideas if we intend to gain leverage and ultimately halt Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, our nation's many think tank dwellers and political pundits seem at a loss to provide such ideas. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that the lack of imagination and foresight on the part of Western strategists represents just as pernicious a threat to international security as Iran's ballistic missile and uranium enrichment programs.
Thankfully, there are a few thinkers out there who are still coming up with inventive solutions. Over the next week, we will highlight a series of alternative ideas to address Iran's nuclear ambition.
First up, Geoffrey Forden and John Thomson's proposal to short-circuit Iran's covert uranium enrichment efforts by establishing a multinational uranium enrichment facility hosted by the Iranians in exchange for Tehran's acceptance of expanded inspection protocols.
More after the jump --->
While We Are Talking About the IAEA... 09/19/2009
Fat Man, The Original Implosion Based Bomb
The Guardian is reporting that a "secret annex" the IAEA's recent report on Iran's nuclear program describes the significant progress the Iranian have made toward building an implosion nuclear warhead (for you visual learners, here is a gif):
The annexe said Iranian scientists had engaged in "probable testing" of explosives arranged in a hemisphere, which is how an implosion-type nuclear warhead is triggered.
There was also evidence, the report says, that Iran had worked on developing a chamber to carry a warhead on top of one of its missiles "that is quite likely to be nuclear".
This news should of course be taken with some caution. In the coming weeks, information and disinformation campaigns regarding Iran's capabilities and intentions will make it hard to decipher which reports are valid and which are well placed leaks.
The annexe said Iranian scientists had engaged in "probable testing" of explosives arranged in a hemisphere, which is how an implosion-type nuclear warhead is triggered.
There was also evidence, the report says, that Iran had worked on developing a chamber to carry a warhead on top of one of its missiles "that is quite likely to be nuclear".
This news should of course be taken with some caution. In the coming weeks, information and disinformation campaigns regarding Iran's capabilities and intentions will make it hard to decipher which reports are valid and which are well placed leaks.
IAEA Pushes Israel on Nuclear Prorgam 09/18/2009
In a surprising move, IAEA members voted to urge Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow the international watchdog to inspect its facilities.
The non-binding resolution represents the first time in 18 years that the IAEA has formally addressed Israel's nuclear program, although it isn't the first time it has tried. The reason for the success of the current initiative is that a preponderance of voting IAEA members currently come from the developing world.
Israel's response, as expected, was basically cute try guys--you aren't getting anywhere near our facilities:
"Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region," chief Israeli delegate David Danieli told the chamber.
As Josh Keating points out, the real loser in all this is the IAEA. It is already an organization with serious international credibility issues. The last thing it needs is another mandate it is completely powerless to enforce.
The non-binding resolution represents the first time in 18 years that the IAEA has formally addressed Israel's nuclear program, although it isn't the first time it has tried. The reason for the success of the current initiative is that a preponderance of voting IAEA members currently come from the developing world.
Israel's response, as expected, was basically cute try guys--you aren't getting anywhere near our facilities:
"Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region," chief Israeli delegate David Danieli told the chamber.
As Josh Keating points out, the real loser in all this is the IAEA. It is already an organization with serious international credibility issues. The last thing it needs is another mandate it is completely powerless to enforce.
CIA: Iran Has Enough Fuel for a Nuke 09/09/2009
Iranian Nuclear Facility at Natanz
According to American intelligence agencies, Iran has enough nuclear fuel to make a bomb. The last step is to enrich this fuel to weapons-grade. However, Iran seems to have paused at this juncture- and nobody is sure why.
Iran still also needs to master the warhead design and perfect a delivery system. Despite frequent boasting, Iran lacks confidence in its missiles, and dropping nuclear payloads from airplanes is dangerous, especially considering Israeli air superiority. Regardless, this is an important "crossing the Rubicon" moment, and the Iranian pause has important implications for policymakers.
This hesitation has 3 potential meanings:
Scenario 1: Paralysis
Terrified of an Israeli/American attack, riven by internal fissures, the Iranian leadership is divided on how to proceed. According to the 2007 NIE, Iran has hesitated before, halting work on a nuclear warhead (not enrichment) in 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Click "Read More" to Continue ----->
Iran still also needs to master the warhead design and perfect a delivery system. Despite frequent boasting, Iran lacks confidence in its missiles, and dropping nuclear payloads from airplanes is dangerous, especially considering Israeli air superiority. Regardless, this is an important "crossing the Rubicon" moment, and the Iranian pause has important implications for policymakers.
This hesitation has 3 potential meanings:
Scenario 1: Paralysis
Terrified of an Israeli/American attack, riven by internal fissures, the Iranian leadership is divided on how to proceed. According to the 2007 NIE, Iran has hesitated before, halting work on a nuclear warhead (not enrichment) in 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Click "Read More" to Continue ----->
Iran's Broken Nuclear Clock 08/25/2009
No political thriller, be it literature or film, is complete without a ticking time-bomb scenario. In a classic example of life imitating art (anyone know the full Oscar Wilde quote?) Iran watchers have readily adopted the metaphor to describe Iran's long march toward nuclear the bomb.
The problem is that no one can seem to figure out exactly how much time is left is left on the clock or how fast it is ticking.
The Israelis claim that Iran will have the capacity to build a crude nuclear weapon by the end of the year. In July CJCS Adm. Mullen seemed to agree with Jerusalem's assessment. But the Israelis have been saying the same thing since the mid-1990s and Mullen's statement contradicts previous US intelligence reports.
So what are we to believe?
Joshua Pollack, an intrepid blogger at armscontrolwonk.com, does a great job of hashing out what these numbers mean, how they are derived and ultimately why the ticking time bomb metaphor isn't a particularly good way to conceptualize Iran's nuclear program. Check out the full article and subsequent debate (armcontrolwonk.com's readers are smart folks) here.
The problem is that no one can seem to figure out exactly how much time is left is left on the clock or how fast it is ticking.
The Israelis claim that Iran will have the capacity to build a crude nuclear weapon by the end of the year. In July CJCS Adm. Mullen seemed to agree with Jerusalem's assessment. But the Israelis have been saying the same thing since the mid-1990s and Mullen's statement contradicts previous US intelligence reports.
So what are we to believe?
Joshua Pollack, an intrepid blogger at armscontrolwonk.com, does a great job of hashing out what these numbers mean, how they are derived and ultimately why the ticking time bomb metaphor isn't a particularly good way to conceptualize Iran's nuclear program. Check out the full article and subsequent debate (armcontrolwonk.com's readers are smart folks) here.
Loading
