Iran to make major nuclear announcement within days, Ahmadinejad says

[PELHAM]

More on the end of the production of material for Nuclear Weapons:
As Iran is a member of the International Conference on Disarmament, I hope one day soon they will endorse this treaty and submit to independant verification along with all the other 65 nations, including Pakistan who is currently blocking the entire process that is supported by the 64 other member nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_on_Disarmament

Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty

The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) is a proposed international treaty to prohibit the further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. The treaty has not been negotiated and its terms remain to be defined. According to a proposal by the United States, fissile material includes high-enriched uranium and plutonium (except plutonium that is over 80% Pu-238). According to a proposal by Russia, fissile material would be limited to weapons-grade uranium (with more than 90% U-235) and plutonium (with more than 90% Pu-239). Neither proposal would prohibit the production of fissile material for non-weapons purposes, including use in civil or naval nuclear reactors.[1]

In a 27 September 1993 speech before the UN, President Clinton called for a multilateral convention banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear explosives or outside international safeguards. In December 1993 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 48/75L calling for the negotiation of a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and international effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." The Geneva based Conference on Disarmament (CD) on 23 March 1995 agreed to a establish a committee to negotiate "a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.".[2] However, substantive negotiations have not taken place.

In 2004, the United States announced that it opposed the inclusion of a verification mechanism in the treaty on the grounds that the treaty could not be effectively verified. On November 4, 2004. the United States cast the sole vote in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly against a resolution (A/C.1/59/L.34) calling for negotiation of an effectively verifiable treaty. The Bush Administration supported a treaty but advocated an ad hoc system of verification wherein states would monitor the compliance of other states through their own national intelligence mechanisms. [3]

On April 5, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama reversed the U.S. position on verification and proposed to negotiate "a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons." On May 29, 2009, the CD agreed to establish an FMCT negotiating committee,[4]

However, Pakistan has repeatedly blocked the CD from implementing its agreed program of work, despite severe pressure from the major nuclear powers to end its defiance of 64 other countries in blocking international ban on the production of new nuclear bomb-making material, as well as discussions on full nuclear disarmament, the arms race in outer space, and security assurances for non-nuclear states

[walker]

Hi all

While North Korea, Israel and Pakistan refuse to sign and allow inspections, this so called treaty is dead in the water, the US cannot even persuade its great "allie" Israel to sign it, never mind Pakistan and North Korea, and with two of those countries threatening Iran with nukes I doubt Iran will rush to sign it.

So this treaty is a fiction.

Kind regards walker

[PELHAM]

Hi all
While North Korea, Israel and Pakistan refuse to sign and allow inspections, this so called treaty is dead in the water, the US cannot even persuade its great "allie" Israel to sign it, never mind Pakistan and North Korea, and with two of those countries threatening Iran with nukes I doubt Iran will rush to sign it.
So this treaty is a fiction.
Kind regards walker

Are you sure you are quoting the proposed Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty there? What you say is true of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is something different (Iran has signed the NPT which is why it is so often up infront of the Security Council for breaking the agreement.)

The general aims of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty are supported by all members except Pakistan. That is why I hope that Iran will sign it once the negotiations and terms are finalised. (Israel, Iran and North Korea are also members, NK was the previous chair)
http://www.defencetalk.com/pakistan-...s-block-21243/

The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) is a proposed international treaty to prohibit the further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.

In January at the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament, the United States re-affirmed it's call for a worldwide halt to the production of materials used in the making of nuclear weapons.
“A verifiable end to the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons is necessary if we are to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons,” Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller said January 24.
http://london.usembassy.gov/acda069.html

[Eble]

Hasn't Iran stated from the start all nuclear ambitions were for peaceful means only, I haven't seen anyone actually say the Iranians are making a bomb, just the US CIA which changes it's mind every few months saying they are, then they arn't, then they could be etc.

Israel aside which accuses Iran of everything (True or not), as Walker said they are hardly speaking from a position of authority, sticking two fingers up to the UN and yet they expect the Iranians to do it?

Just google US vetoes over Israel, it's a pretty long list to be fair, Sick of the lot of them to be honest, the drive for war with Iran is getting bigger and were all being sucked in.

Just last week the US threw the toys out the pram over Syria and the UN resolution, then today they welcome the next Chinese president like a home coming queen, China relies massively on Iranian oil, any war could be seen as a threat to the national security of China, what would happen then?

A lot of talk at the moment about Israel going it alone in the next few months they haven't the ability to attack all the sites at once, so the Iranians would be able to deploy missiles against Israel bringing the US into the fight, if this went to a ground war it would make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

[batto]

Just last week the US threw the toys out the pram over Syria and the UN resolution, then today they welcome the next Chinese president like a home coming queen.

Yup, I knew it was just for media to make a show.

[PELHAM]

The International Atomic Energy Authority says different:
In 2006, the IAEA inspectors found sensitive documents, including instructions and diagrams on how to make uranium into a sphere, which is only necessary to make nuclear weapons. Iran furnished the IAEA with copies, claiming not to have used the information for weapons work, which it had obtained along with other technology and parts in 1987 and the mid-1990s. It is thought this material was sold to them by Abdul Qadeer Khan (Pakistan), though the documents did not have the necessary technical details to actually manufacture a bomb.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors rebuked Iran following an IAEA report detailing how Iran had undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability. The IAEA report outlines, in depth, the country’s detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle. IAEA officials identified a "large explosive containment vessel" inside Parchin. The IAEA later assessed that Iran has been conducting experiments to develop nuclear weapons capability. Iran rejected the details of the report and accused the IAEA of pro-Western bias and threatened to reduce its cooperation with the IAEA.

UN Security Council

The UN Security Council has passed seven resolutions on Iran:

Resolution 1696 (31 July 2006) demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities, invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to make that demand legally binding on Iran.

Resolution 1737 (23 December 2006) imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its enrichment activities, cutting off nuclear cooperation, demanding that Iran cooperate with the IAEA, and freezing the assets of a number of persons and organizations linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It established a committee to monitor sanctions implementation.[116]

Resolution 1747 (24 March 2007) expanded the list of sanctioned Iranian entities and welcomed the proposal by the permanent five members of the Security Council plus Germany for resolving issues regarding Iran's nuclear program.

In resolution 1803 (3 March 2008), the Council decided to extend those sanctions to additional persons and entities, impose travel restrictions on sanctioned persons, and bar exports of nuclear- and missile-related dual-use goods to Iran.[117]

Resolution 1835 (27 September 2008) reaffirmed the preceding four resolutions, the only one of the seven not to invoke Chapter VII.

Resolution 1929 (9 June 2010) imposed a complete arms embargo on Iran, banned Iran from any activities related to ballistic missiles, authorized the inspection and seizure of shipments violating these restrictions, and extended the asset freeze to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). The resolution passed by a vote of 12–2, with Turkey and Brazil voting against and Lebanon abstaining. A number of countries imposed measures to implement and extend these sanctions, including the United States, the European Union, Australia,[118] Canada,[119] Japan,[120] Norway,[121] South Korea,[122] and Russia.[123]

Resolution 1984 (8 June 2011) extended for a further 12 months the mandate of the Panel of Experts established by Resolution 1929.

[Nicholas]

I don't think it is right for the US or Russia to tell other countries they can not have nuclear weapons when they have nuclear weapons themselves. Although, the US and Russia have been attempting to cooperate and lower the nuclear arsenal.

I do believe that Iran has nuclear weapons, but they have kept them hidden. I think that there will always be nuclear weapons as at least one country will be unwilling to give them up.

[PELHAM]

I don't think it is right for the US or Russia to tell other countries they can not have nuclear weapons when they have nuclear weapons themselves. Although, the US and Russia have been attempting to cooperate and lower the nuclear arsenal.

I do believe that Iran has nuclear weapons, but they have kept them hidden. I think that there will always be nuclear weapons as at least one country will be unwilling to give them up.

Iran is a signatory of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
It is not the US or Russia telling them they can't have nuclear weapons it's the UN Security Council. Iran has signed an agreement stating they will not develop Nuclear weapons and will submit to verification procedures by the International Atomic energy Authority. The problem arose when Iran was repeatedly caught hiding aspects of it's Nuclear Program which led to the UN Security Council Resolutions shown in my post above.

It's a principle of international law, Iran can't have it both ways. If they want to develop nuclear weapons they must first withdraw from the NPT giving 90 days notice.

NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[19] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[60] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[20] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[61] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[62] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[63]

[Nicholas]

Iran is a signatory of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
It is not the US or Russia telling them they can't have nuclear weapons it's the UN Security Council. Iran has signed an agreement stating they will not develop Nuclear weapons and will submit to verification procedures by the International Atomic energy Authority. The problem arose when Iran was repeatedly caught hiding aspects of it's Nuclear Program which led to the UN Security Council Resolutions shown in my post above.

It's a principle of international law, Iran can't have it both ways. If they want to develop nuclear weapons they must first withdraw from the NPT giving 90 days notice.

NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[19] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[60] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[20] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[61] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[62] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[63]

I never said that the US and Russia told Iran they could not have weapons. Re-read my post.

I don't think it is right for the US or Russia to tell other countries they can not have nuclear weapons when they have nuclear weapons themselves. Although, the US and Russia have been attempting to cooperate and lower the nuclear arsenal.

Here is the part where I talk about Iran:

I do believe that Iran has nuclear weapons, but they have kept them hidden.

[walker]

Hi all

Turns out it was three announcements:

1. They have successfully enriched Uranium to 20%
2. They are now able to refuel their medical research reactor and in all probability their other reactors.
3. They have started manufacturing their own more advanced centrifuges.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1691239.php/State-broadcaster-Iran-to-unveil-three-new-nuclear-projects

Consequences.
Iran can now build its own reactors, it has mastered high speed centrifuge technology so Stuxnet type attacks will no longer work.

When you combine this with Iran's all to apparent technology advances one has to accept that: as well as 30 or so warheads it bought from former soviet sources and the three it manufactured from nuclear material it purchased, heck there is even evidense it tested two nukes in underground tests back in 2008; Iran has the capability to make its own nukes.

Whether it will is moot.

Kind regards walker