RAND Corp.: Too late to bomb Iran - they can produce a nuke in 2 months
A RAND Corporation researcher says that it is too late to bomb Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. According to the researcher, Iran is capable of producing a nuclear weapon within two months and the only way to stop it is by military occupation. The Iranian regime is closer than ever before to creating a nuclear bomb, according to RAND Corporation researcher Gregory S. Jones.What could go wrong?
At its current rate of uranium enrichment, Tehran could have enough for its first bomb within eight weeks, Jones said in a report published this week.
He added that despite reports of setbacks in its nuclear program, the Iranian regime is steadily progressing towards a bomb. Unfortunately, Jones says, there is nothing the US can do to stop Tehran, short of military occupation.
The researcher based his report on recent findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), published two weeks ago. Making the bomb will take around two months, he says, because constructing a nuclear warhead is a complicated step in the process.
Jones stresses that stopping Iran will require deploying forces on the ground, because airstrikes are no longer sufficient. The reality is that the US and Israel have failed to keep Iran from developing a nuclear warhead whenever it wants, Jones says.
...
According to Jones, Tehran has produced 38.3 kg of uranium enriched at 19.7%. If its centrifuges continue to work at the current capacity, it will take around two months for the Iranian regime to produce the 20 kg of uranium enriched to 90% required for the production of a nuclear warhead.
Labels: enriched uranium, Iranian nuclear threat
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:34 AM
9 Comments:
What could go wrong? Nothing.
It's only a matter of time before Iran becomes a nuclear power, assuming she isn't already.
It's also a matter of time before Saudi Arabia (already thought to have nukes, wired to it's oil fields to blow them up in the event an invasion) goes officially nuclear, followed by the GCC, Egypt and every other country.
Neither Iran nor any other country will nuke Israel. Ahmedinejad's words were misrepresented. He did not threaten to nuke or attack Israel.
In any case, empty pans make much noise. The noise here being Israel is under threat from a nuclear attack.
The only THREAT that Israel faces from Iran is that once Iran goes nuclear, Israel will lose her regional miliatary superiority.
I don't know how to find out what is up with Rand... They have been promulgating this RAND Palestine Initiative, which calls for a sickle of a rail corridor slicing through the middle of Israel between Gaza and the WB. They talk economics, etc. and don't even mention rockets onto civilians, suicide bombers, flotillas, etc. They are backing the Disneyland Imagination Nation scenario.
http://www.rand.org/palestine.html
Also, I recently read, in the middle of some long article, the heart stopping sentence that George Soros is a major donor to Rand.
And finally, this guy that is quoted is not one of their credentialed analysts. His title says "adjunct" and his education (according to his Rand bio) is an associates degree (not that the degree is determinative of quality necessarily). So it would be good to try to get an endorsement from, oh maybe Brian Jenkins or someone senior like that before acting on this analysis you've posted:
http://www.rand.org/about/people/j/jones_gregory_s.html
In summary, I hope Israel will not allow RAND, especially if funded by GEORGE SOROS, to deter you off the interim possibilities. Remember that these same kinds of people produced a politically blocking intelligence estimate in '07 (?) saying that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. These people are not Israel's friends. They aren't the U.S.'s friends, for that matter.
It's never too late to bomb Iran. More lying propaganda from Obama's drones!
A paper regarding Iran’s efforts to produce nuclear materials has been erroneously referred to in some media reports as a RAND study. It was written by Gregory Jones, a part-time adjunct staff member, on his own time, and was published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. The paper was not related to a RAND project and not reviewed for quality and objectivity by RAND. RAND has a considerable body of research on Iran and related topics which may be found here: http://www.rand.org/topics/iran.html
Some media outlets have gone so far as to suggest that RAND via the paper advocated an attack on Iran to halt its development of nuclear materials. RAND has done no such thing. RAND is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to rigorous research and analysis, and we believe it is important to correct such errors in coverage.
Every day of the week Ahmadinnerjacket threatens, prophesies, announces the end of Israel. Throw in the mix his adherence to 12th Mahdi apocalypse end-times eschatology and an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel cannot be ruled out. Israel's regional superiority in conventional arms is already checked by the Iranian axis of rejection encircling Israel. It's nuclear counterforce superiority would not be endangered by a rational Iranian polity possessing nuclear weapons. But Ahmadinnerjacket is testing the red light limits of the rational and he controls the Revolutionary Guard which controls nuclear weaponization.
Bombing Iran is something that should have and still should be done. But not the nuke sites ]at first anyway]. The head of the IAEA said in Jan 2006 that iran could have the bomb in as little as a few months. So if ElBaradei said that in 2006 I see no reason to doubt Rand's prediction, hell the head of the IAEA was saying it in 2006. You can go here to read what ElBaradei said it is about halfway down in the interview. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/transcripts/2006/newsweek12012006.html
Back to bombing Iran. Isaid at the start not to bomb the nuke sites at least to begin with. I have posted this in the past and believe it to still be the way to go. Using our Navy, Air Force and missiles [along with some Special Forces] we should start by taking out Irans military bases, especially the republican guard and command and control [radar, communications etc.].
Our navy and Air Force are more than capable of carrying out those strikes at the same time.
We should also go after their government; with the technology we have it shouldn’t be that hard to know where they are at and target them. Then after Irans government and military are destroyed and I do mean destroyed, no half measures.
Then we can go after the nuclear targets if we choose to.
You have to hit them hard and fast otherwise they could retaliate. If we could get some or all of our allies to join in, it would mean accomplishing it in very short order.
This would also have an effect on Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, PA, North Korea and Venezuela by removing Iran as a sponsor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
A paper regarding Iran's efforts to produce nuclear materials has been erroneously referred to in some media reports as a RAND study. It was written by Gregory Jones, a part-time adjunct staff member, on his own time, and was published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. The paper was not related to a RAND project and not reviewed for quality and objectivity by RAND. RAND has a considerable body of research on Iran and related topics which may be found here: http://www.rand.org/topics/iran.html.
Some media outlets have gone so far as to suggest that RAND, via the paper, advocated an attack on Iran to halt its development of nuclear materials. RAND has done no such thing. RAND is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to rigorous research and analysis, and we believe it is important to correct such errors in coverage.
Post a Comment
<< Home