Post #296,734
12/3/07 1:59:15 PM
|
NIE says Iran stopped work on bomb in 2003
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html|CNN] A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic halted an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.
The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was "determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure." No wonder they avoided doing one in 2006 and hid this one for so long. Most of our justification for pressure on Iran just went out the window. Jay
|
Post #296,735
12/3/07 3:05:09 PM
|
We all know how accurate they are.
What did the NIE on Iraq's WMD say?
That Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "has chemical and biological weapons," and that "all key aspects--R&D [research and development], production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." It also said that Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents." [link|http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7758|http://www.cfr.org/p...tion.html?id=7758] Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #296,740
12/3/07 4:10:13 PM
|
Very true
I'm not foolish enough to say anything about the actual accuracy. The CIA has a pretty bad history when it comes to picking up the important stuff before it happens. But it is the political impact that is important here.
In a rational world Bush would be forced to back down if the NIE produced by his own intelligence service didn't back his position. How can he claim to be working from valid information if the governments own experts don't see it?
Bush, naturally, won't back down at all. And is liable to come back with something like "We have to invade now, before they actually have nukes."
But it will mess up his ability to cow and/or confuse other governments and Democrats into backing him.
Jay
|
Post #296,783
12/5/07 12:33:46 PM
|
Of course...
The CIA has a pretty bad history when it comes to picking up the important stuff before it happens. But it is the political impact that is important here. You assume they WANT to catch the ones that back fire on them... Perhaps, they were "allowed" to happen to prove a point and to get something like DHS to happen. Ever consider that? --
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Alternate Fingerprint: 455F E104 22CA 29C4 933F 9505 2B79 2AB2
|
Post #296,746
12/3/07 8:40:48 PM
|
Jeez, only four years after the fact!
So, if Amadina Nutjob resumed the weapons program last year, we'll find out in 2010? Can't someone there be bought by the CIA?
Alex
Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
|
Post #296,757
12/4/07 10:41:40 AM
|
Plame damage
It is all classified so we don't know exactly, but it has been widely insinuated that blowing Plame's cover did a lot of damage to our intelligence gathering in Iran and that her job was related to tracking nuclear weapons.
So right now, our information on Iran's nuclear program is probably limited to orbital cameras and rumor.
Jay
|
Post #296,759
12/4/07 10:43:59 AM
|
wouldnt be surprised at some russo paki humint
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #296,760
12/4/07 10:56:50 AM
|
We've had problems alot longer than that.
Our intelligence gathering has been hampered for a long time by lack of physical assets. Losing 1 isn't going to make that much of a difference.
Our thinking that we can do it all with satellites and network wiretaps has and will continue to get us into trouble.
The simple fact is, regardles of what this or any other NIE says, we simply don't know what they are doing.
This NIE is a piece of work...it says they quit their weapons program...BUT they could make a weapon within 2 years. So what this tells me is they have a weapons program thats pretty well advanced to the stage of "we can make a weapon any time we want"...and the CIA is >guessing< that right now isn't the time they want to make it.
It also pretty much admits that if there are any covert programs, all bets are off.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #296,765
12/4/07 12:36:01 PM
|
It wasn't loosing her personally that did the damage
Our intelligence gathering has been hampered for a long time by lack of physical assets. Losing 1 isn't going to make that much of a difference. It wasn't loosing her personally, but the connections that blowing her cover revealed. Anybody she had worked closely with would now fall under suspicion, so if she had recruited any informants they where now in danger. Worse, the name of the company she worked for was blown as a CIA front company, and apparently this company was used by more then one agent over seas. This would create a domino effect of blown covers. Our thinking that we can do it all with satellites and network wiretaps has and will continue to get us into trouble. Very true. This NIE is a piece of work...it says they quit their weapons program...BUT they could make a weapon within 2 years. So what this tells me is they have a weapons program thats pretty well advanced to the stage of "we can make a weapon any time we want"...and the CIA is >guessing< that right now isn't the time they want to make it. The NIE is always a piece of work. They are influenced by political fractions within the government that want to push one view or another. And if Iran's stated goals for nuclear production are honest, they will have enough capacity to produce the nuclear material for a bomb at some point. They could probably do it right now if they pushed all of their production capacity towards making one low powered bomb. And for a national government that is really the hard part, nuclear material is very hard to make and decays over time. The rest of the bomb making is not easy but compared to making the nuclear material in the first place it isn't hard. Jay
|
Post #296,809
12/5/07 8:51:47 PM
|
It says a lot of things that are obviously true.
[link|http://dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf|Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities] (9 page .pdf): F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities \ufffd rather than its declared nuclear sites \ufffd for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. Duh. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.
G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015. Plutonium isn't found (in reasonable quantities) in nature. It's formed in reactors via [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239|reactions with U238]. Since Iran [link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm|doesn't have an operational reactor], it's reasonable to assume that several years will be required before enough plutonium is available for reprocessing. Then they'll have to figure out how to do it. This assumes that they'll have enough fuel of their own (not fuel donated by Russia that would have to be returned for reprocessing) - something that isn't a given. H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. Atomic bombs are 1940s technology. Any reasonably modern country can solve the problem if it's willing to invest the time and money to do so. This means, of course, that keeping the genies confined to [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons|9 bottles] will become increasingly difficult without a change in thinking. Cheers, Scott. [link|http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006978452673906630972%3A_5xhnlvpsn4|IWeThey Custom Search Engine]
|
