UN: Iran has enough uranium for nuclear weapon

February 20th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

UN officials told the Financial Times that Iran has produced enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb.

They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

“It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb,” said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Time is running out for the West and Israel. Either something has to be done within the next few weeks or we’ll have to live with a nuclear armed Iran (if they Mullahs decide to further enrich the produced uranium, that is).

Either way, Western policy will be risky. Intervention may cause tremendous problems, allowing the Shiite state to build a nuclear bomb will give it tremendous power and influence in the region and it may very well use the weapon against its arch enemy, Israel.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Rudi666
    February 20th, 2009 at 20:31
    Reply | Quote | #1

    The Iranians have ZERO weapons grade U. Having a 100Kg of LEU isn’t going to make a bomb. Stop the scare tactics. Please show any link where the Iranians have ANY HEU.

  2. Holly in Cincinnati
    February 21st, 2009 at 00:29
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Rudi, please go educate yourself.

  3. Jason, Managing Editor
    February 21st, 2009 at 01:43
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Rudi, the information was in the original article: If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

    And you don’t give orders around here, so stop trying.

  4. Rudi666
    February 21st, 2009 at 08:07
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Holly Maybe you should read jdlellels comment at TMV. He repeats what I say and developes even better points. Once again, ZERO HEU.

    This link to the FT piece without the hassle of Jill’s.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f367aada-fec8-11dd-b19a-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

    The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran’s production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.

    When the agency carried out an annual stocktaking of Natanz in mid-November Iran had produced 839kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride – more than 200kg more than previously thought. Tehran produced an additional 171kg by the end of January.

    UN officials emphasise that to produce fissile material Iran would have to reconfigure its Natanz plant to produce high enriched uranium rather than low enriched uranium – a highly visible step that would take months – or to shift its stockpile to a clandestine site.

    No such sites have been proved to exist, although for decades Iran concealed evidence of its nuclear programme.

    A senior UN official added that countries usually waited until they had an enriched uranium stockpile sufficient for several bombs before proceeding to develop fissile material. He conceded that Iran now had enough enriched uranium for one bomb.

    “Do they have enough low enriched uranium to produce a significant quantity [enough high enriched uranium for a bomb]?” he said. “In theory this is possible, [although] with the present configuration at Natanz it isn’t.”

  5. Interested
    February 21st, 2009 at 12:59
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Do you read what you post Rudi?

    You state emphatically that Iran doesn’t and couldn’t have any. Yet what you post says – Could; has concealed in the past; possible; may just need to ship to a clandestine site.

  6. Rudi666
    February 21st, 2009 at 18:01
    Reply | Quote | #6

    Int:

    UN officials emphasise that to produce fissile material Iran would have to reconfigure its Natanz plant to produce high enriched uranium rather than low enriched uranium – a highly visible step that would take months – or to shift its stockpile to a clandestine site.

    No such sites have been proved to exist,

  7. Rudi666
    February 22nd, 2009 at 19:33
    Reply | Quote | #7

    the experts at ACW’s call these stories
    Iran da bomb

    Iran Panic Induced By Lousy Reporting
    posted Friday February 20, 2009 under iran by jeffrey

    Another IAEA DG Report on Iran. Cue the panic.

    Iran Has More Enriched Uranium Than Thought!

    Iran understates uranium stocks to IAEA!

    Iran holds enough uranium for bomb!

    Only the exclamation points are mine. These stories are scandalous. Daniel Dombey’s father is a physicist for god’s sake!

    (Joby Warrick, on the other hand, took the relatively balanced view, with Iran Easing Aspects Of Nuclear Program in the Washington Post, February 20, 2009, A14. I wonder whether his editors will give him a hard time for not writing the same thing everyone else has written.)

    Obviously, Iran would have to further enrich its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to make a bomb, which would be detected (at least at Natanz). We’ve been over this before.

    As Holly said, go educate yourselves.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.