« Open String on Iraq Strategery | Main | Habakkuk on the neocons' use of intelligence »

13 December 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Babak Makkinejad

Col. Lang:

"They are, in fact, symptomatic of a great mind which has lost its own way"; indeed!

Same with Bernard Lewis who used to be a good historian.

Will

Nuke weapons 101. Uranium based weapons are not deliverable on a missile. They are not shrinkable. Plutonium weapons are. Plutonium weapons are a thousand times more complicated.

In fact the uranium bomb (dropped on Hiroshima) was so simple and the physicists so sure it would work they did not even first test it.

Plutonium bombs need conventional explosive shaped charges acting as refractive lenses and microsecond electronic triggers- matters of precise machining and timing.

Hi verbal and math IQ does not automatically mean good judgment (although they lead to educational success & wealth). Kissinger is a fxking idiot as far as I am concerned.

One out of every four Americans with an IQ over 140 is a Jewish American. This is because their average IQ is 115. Even though their population percentage is only 2.5% of the overall population, that is a result of the the bell shaped Gaussian distribution.

Unfortunately, many of them are blind supporters of Israel when push comes to shove. High IQ does not always go with good judgment. Witness Douglas Feith, for one.

The indicia for nuke weapon development is not nuke enrichment, it is PLUTONIUM. There are reactors that use plutonium and are capable of turning uranium into plutonium, such as the Israeli Dimona reactor. So far, the Persicos are not traveling that road.

Charles I

Let us recall Super K's work at secretly implementing the illegal foreign war policy program of another extra-Congressional criminal administration run by a clever president with the minor flaw that he too was a delusional criminal.

But in those days, we walked 20 miles and back to school each day in all seasons - uphill both ways! Back then, Congress could be roused from its gluttonous slumber to defend the Constitution. Now the kids get bussed all about but the criminality of the elite runs ever rampant, ever unaccounttable.

Nothing new here. The "democracy' we enjoy here is really seen as the plaything of Clifford Kiracole's trans-national trans-denominational neo-conservative globalized elites. Once in awhile, commonly now, but hardly remarked upon - thanks PL - they can't be bothered to dissemble, as increasing familiarity with the ease by which such oligopic flim-flammery is swallowed wholesale becomes the narcissistic entitlement to rule in divine self-interest.

jamzo

henry Kissinger built his career on the status he earned as an expert on the "nuclear bomb"

this is well described by jeremi suri in his recent book: "Henry Kissinger and the American Century"

in the book suri outlines kissinger's career and his "outsider" relationhip with the "intelligence community" starting with his army days in counterintelligence and continuing to his days on the National Security Council and as secretary of state

from a description of the book on the Woodrow Wilson Center websitse

" - At the end of the day, in Suri's account, Kissinger's philosophy boiled down to the need to back democracy with muscle. America, alone of the free countries, said Kissinger, was strong enough to assure global security against the forces of tyranny. Only America had both the power and the decency to inspire other peoples who struggled for identity, for progress and dignity."

the mindset that suri describes is reflected in kissinger' op-ed

kissinger's business must be doing well enough that hi no longer seeks public recognition as an adviser to presidents and is satisfied with speaking out now and then to support the "use of military power"

ayla

How can we take back out corporate and zionist controlled media? We need to spread the word about kissinger's near arrest in France for war crimes. Which and how many war crimes lists is he on, along with his old friend, poppy?

Have a look at the Political Friendster social network for the Zionist Movement. Feel free to add meaningful and verifiable entities and connections.

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6434&name=Zionist-Movement


JohnH

They are all so disingenous. It's time to question the basic premise that knowing how to enrich uranium for electic power clearly means that Iran knows how to enrich it to weapons level. Apparently, Iranian uranium is contaminated with molybdenum and other heavy metals. Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research groups say that "Iran will...have to solve a difficult technical problem before producing significant amounts of highly enriched uranium. Iranian uranium is reportedly contaminated with large amounts of molybdenum and other heavy metals. These impurities could condense and block pipes and valves in the gas centrifuges. In spite of this problem, the Iranians should be able to enrich uranium to the low enrichment needed for civil nuclear-power reactor fuel. But they would not be able to enrich above about 20 per cent in uranium-235.
They would, therefore, not be able to produce uranium enriched enough for use in nuclear weapons. To do so they would first have to remove most of the molybdenum. They would need foreign technical help – from, for example, China or Russia – to solve this problem…"
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/IranNuclearMar06.pdf

Try getting anyone in the corporate media to run with that story! The propaganda continues.

Joe Soap

The only thing to wonder about HK is whether the war crimes investigators will catch up with him before he dies.

Ditto Dick Cheney.

Andy
He insists that the mere enrichment of uranium is the most dangerous part of such a program.

From a technical standpoint he is right. Fissile material is the greatest technical hurdle to building nuclear weapons and once it is mastered it really is a "crossing the Rubicon" event from a purely technical standpoint. There's a reason why the IAEA does not hand out enrichment technology and why the vast majority of fuel enrichment takes place in consortiums with the actual facilities residing in NPT nuclear-weapons states.

In this process of reasoning, Kissinger ignores the fact that uranium enrichment is also necessary to produce fuel needed to have a large number of atomic electric plants. The difference in the two kinds of enrichment is that weapons production requires a much higher percentage of enrichment. The difference is detectable and so far the IAEA has not detected any efforts to produce weapons grade enriched fuel.

Fuel enrichment is NOT required for all types of reactors (CANDU for example), but it certainly is for the majority of power reactors. Unmentioned is that Iran does not need a domestic enrichment capability to fuel reactors. In fact, it would stand to save quite a lot of money by purchasing fuel on the market, particularly as Kazakh uranium enriched in Russian facilities comes to market and reduces the price in the next few years. Be that as it may, Iran has been offered guaranteed access to reactor fuel which it has rejected. Even under the Shah there were not plans for a domestic Iranian fuel program - instead the Shah signed a contract with EURODIF to provide fuel produced on French soil for Iranian power reactors. That contract (along with every other nuclear contract) was unilaterally canceled by the new Khomeni regime when the fuel production facility Iran partially owned was literally weeks away from completion. Iran would be receiving EURODIF fuel today if not for its actions in the years following the revolution.

As for the IAEA's ability to detect diversion, it can only do so with facilities under safeguard, but even then diversion is possible unless the Additional Protocol is in place and the member nation agrees to extra voluntary monitoring measures (you can read about some of the problems with current safeguarding methods here.).

The IAEA has no inherent right to investigate the activities of Iran or any other state unless that state allows it or unless third-party intelligence is provided to the IAEA that shows violations. IOW, the IAEA only safeguard's declared facilities. As we saw with Iraq's EMIS program in 1991 as well as Iran's numerous activities for almost two decades, the IAEA isn't very good at detecting hidden programs. Iraq's EMIS program was only discovered after the 1991 war and Iran's activities were only discovered when the US provided the agency intelligence on the facilities.

I greatly enjoy your informative blog, but it seems that you focus more attention lately on neocon aspect of issues above everything else, which, in my opinion, damages your arguments. Assuming your blog here is meant to influence and inform, then I wonder what utility is served by focusing the majority of your effort on allegations that Kissinger belongs to the neocon club instead of wholly puting that effort into refuting his arguments. Examining connections between Kissinger and the neocons do not show that his views are wrong.

Sadly, the tendency these days is to lump people into certain "camps" where they can be safely dismissed without having to substantively address their arguments. From my perspective your increasing focus on the "neocon cabal" over the last six months indicates to me that you're moving in that direction. It concerns me because you have an important perspective and rare experience that needs to be heard. The trouble is that focusing on groups like the neocons as a group instead of addressing the arguments they make on their merits alone is likely to appeal only to the already converted neocon-haters out there and not those who are sitting on the fence, much less those who are sympathetic to the other side. IOW, refuting arguments, policies and positions is more likely to influence than attempts at labeling. Just my 2 cents.

impeach

"The CIA is enemy territory" Paul Wolfowitz Against US Intelligence

The following was posted at the following Internet Newsgroup URL:

http://tinyurl.com/2xxgrx

"The CIA is enemy territory" Paul Wolfowitz Against US Intelligence

The quote in the title comes from a very informative document that you can
read here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=pa...

There is a good reason why Paul Wolfowitz has no use for the CIA or the US
Intelligence Community. It has to do with the word they share in common.

Intelligence , as in something that is gathered from a study of the facts.
Something that has some basis in reality. Facts just get in the way of
people like Wolfowitz, who make up their minds what they want to do, and then make up excuses why they have to do it.

The document above is a handy resource with links to many sources about things said and done by and about Paul Wolfowitz. I decided to put on my hip boots and wade into Wolfowitz's career in political propaganda, because
something about the recent Iran NIE bashing maneuver coordinated by the New
York Times and Washington Post reminds me of the run up to the war with Iraq.

Even before 9/11, Wolfowitz is ready to invade Iraq. While Tenet and others worry about Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, Wolfowitz wants to get on with
the Project for the New American Century ---you know, liberating oil that was under the control of brown people. When the CIA and FBI fails to get on board his theories that Saddam blew up the WTC in 1993 "he said something
derisive about how I shouldn't believe the CIA and FBI, that they've been wrong."

After 9/11, Dept. Defense Sect. Wolfowitz is commissioned by Rumfeld to set up the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, which picks and chooses which
intelligence it likes.

Critics claim that its members manipulate and distort intelligence,
"cherry-picking" bits of information that support their preconceived conclusions. "There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Defense Department and the intelligence community, to include its own
Defense Intelligence Agency," a defense official will tell the New York Times. "Wolfowitz and company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support their own preconceived conclusions.

The CIA is enemy territory, as far arethey're concerned."

This group leaked material from the US intelligence community, a patternwhich will become familiar.

According to unnamed Pentagon and US intelligence officials, the group is also accused of providing sensitive CIA and Pentagon intercepts to the US-funded Iraqi National Congress, which then pass them on to the government
of Iran.

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=82566

jonst

So the question (one of them) is: What smoked K out? Why now? Why he did he feel the urgency to line up with the neocons now, having stayed in the shadows for so long?

W. Patrick Lang

Andy

I hsve concluded that the "neocon cabal" deliberately employs propaganda techniques to deceive and that their arguments are not based on logic. they are based on a desire to deceive.

To argue their points is to concede them an audience for their usually fallacious arguments.

In short, I have ceased to consider them honorable men. pl

W. Patrick Lang

"I totally concur that Kissinger has really let his true colors show with the shameless attack on the NIE. Not only does it reveal Kissinger's prominent role in the war party faction. It calls to mind two earlier episodes from Kissinger's career. First, I believe it was Bob Woodward's latest mea culpa book on the Bush 43 Presidency that revealed that Kissinger was the most frequent consultant to Dick Cheney, throughout the administration. Second, back in the Nixon era, Kissinger hated the intelligence community, especially the CIA, and did everything in his power as NSC advisor and Secretary of States to trash the CIA, and strip away as much power as he could. Some news documentation of this is found in Legacy of Ashes, recently published." Harper

Grumpy

As I read the op-ed piece, I kept thinking of history. I can only speak for myself, but I know a few Viet-Nam era vets, me included, who would like to have a "chat" with Dr. "K". It is strange, the people who want these wars are NOT the ones fighting them. Then, like terrorism, track the money, who is making money off of this war? There are many questions to be answered. Our leaders should not be making money off of this war or any war. It would appear to be a conflict of interest.

Grumpy

Babak Makkinejad

Andy:

Iran is a sovereign state. She is also a proud and resourceful country. If her leaders decide that building a nuclear weapon is in her best interest they will do so. And there is nothing any state actor can do to stop them short of invading and occupying that country.

My recommendation to stop diggingis when in a hole.

In regards to EURODIF here is what I know:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-iranenrich.asp

Andy

Will,

Nuke weapons 101. Uranium based weapons are not deliverable on a missile. They are not shrinkable. Plutonium weapons are. Plutonium weapons are a thousand times more complicated.

That is simply 100% false. If you do some research on US nuclear artillery shells, you'll find that almost all are HEU gun designs. The earliest of these, built in 52-53, was the W-9 which at 900 pounds is well within the capabilities of many Iranian missile systems.

There are reactors that use plutonium and are capable of turning uranium into plutonium, such as the Israeli Dimona reactor. So far, the Persicos are not traveling that road.

Perhaps you've never heard of Arak?

JohnH,

It's time to question the basic premise that knowing how to enrich uranium for electic power clearly means that Iran knows how to enrich it to weapons level.

It's not a premise - it is established fact. There is no difference in the facilities or technology needed.

As for Iranian UF6 purity problems, that is something Iran can solve on it's own, provided it hasn't already. As an interesting aside, do you know why Iran has hex purity problems? It's because the Clinton Administration convinced the Chinese to stop building a UCF in Iran. It's considered one of the great nonproliferation accomplishments of the Clinton administration.

Pat,

To argue their points is to concede them an audience for their usually fallacious arguments.

If their arguments are so fallacious, they should be easy to refute, correct? Might I suggest that removing yourself from debating on the merits because you don't like your opponents and/or their tactics is counterproductive. How, exactly, is essentially stating "he's a neocon, therefore he is wrong" adding any substance to the debate?

I don't agree with a lot of Kissinger's commentary but he's right on a few key points, the most cogent being:

The new estimate does not assess how long it would take to build a warhead, though it treats the availability of fissile material as the principal limiting factor. If there is a significant gap between these two processes, it would be important to be told what it is. Nor are we told how close to developing a warhead Tehran was when it suspended its program or how confident the intelligence community is in its ability to learn when work on warheads has resumed. On the latter point, the new estimate expresses only "moderate" confidence that the suspension has not been lifted already.
Andy

Babak,

Your link is a good, short synopsis and notes it was Iran that canceled the contract. One thing it doesn't discuss is that the principle advantage of the EURODIF model compared to URENCO is that it limits technology transfer and is therefore much safer from a proliferation standpoint.

Fred

Pat,
I think this should get boiled down to a simple question of which nations the US (the current administration) will allow to develop nuclear weapon?
If those nations won't be allowed then how do you deter them? Diplomacy, treaties, sanctions? If none of those work who decides what comes next, the 'commander in chief' under the pretext of 'keeping America safe', the Congress by declaration of war?
Who then decides to stop the war - based on what? How long does the US stay inside that nation once they have 'won'.
And just as important - what are the expected consequences of having a war with the nation(s) (Iran) the US (current administration) decides they will not allow to have nuclear weapons?

W. Patrick Lang

Andy

The damage done to this country by the people we have been discussing is immense. They are given to sophism and one should be careful about "cutting them slack."

Thanks for your opinion. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Andy:

There is no way to make industrial development safe from a proliferation point of view; not in nuclear energy, not in rocketry, not in chemicals, and not in biotech.

Consider this: the pump used in V2 rcoket engine for liquid oxygen was initially developed for use in fire engines 40 years earlier.

Realistically, what you can do is to try to changes states' calculations for deploying nuclear weapons. So far, the United States, in my opinion, has done an excellent job of creating incentives for their creation and deployment by many many state actors.

That's why I wrote: "When in hole, first stop digging."

JohnH

Andy,
I would agree with you if all uranium ore was created equal. Yes, Iran could probably eventually solve the problem of impurities in the uranium, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME and RESOURCES or foreign advise. The time frame is significant enough for Barnaby to conclude that Iran would "not be able to produce uranium enriched enough for use in nuclear weapons."

Therefore the presence of these impurities makes the weaponization process different from the electic fuel creation process. In one case, they have to remove the impurities, in the other case they don't. You judge the difference to be trivial, Barnaby sees it as virtually insurmountable.

I trust Barnaby on this, because he is a nuclear physicist with established, impressive credentials, including a 55 year career in the field.

The Bushies and their neo-con-job friends are intent on closing the sale and must sweep under the rug any information that suggests energy and weaponization require different knowledge.

jonst

Andy,

You seem to imply that you embrace the--false, in my opinion-- paradigm that Dr. K, and many, many others offer. That is 'possession', or even the desire to 'possess' the weapons in question should be the central issue in the matter. "Central" enough, and pivotal enough to contemplate initiating hostiles with a nation we are not at war with. This, as opposed to the use of such weapons. I wonder what would have happened had this been our position with regard to the Soviet Union, or China? Both of whom had a clear ability to deliver the weapons in question at our nation. As opposed to Iran, with a clear inability, at present, and in the foreseeable future to strike at our nation. Why the rejection of retaliation, massive retaliation, of the kind that would not allow the survival of a nation in question, as a strategy? What changed so much to make our nation contemplate this radical, and highly risky, change in strategy?

Steve

Andy,

Perhaps you might take a few moments and read the Constitution of the United States. If you can find the time, maybe you could share what you learned with your friends. Maybe you could explain to them, that such a document actually exists. You might also want to tell your friends, that most of those who take the oath to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, actually take the oath with seriousness and presence of mind.

With my best to you and your friends,

Steve
Former Captain, USMC

Curious

I don't understand how the mind of these people operate at all.

1. The world is watching the neocon closely. Any false move. a) dump dollar, b) stop buying bond, c) start buying oil, gold.

And we already see the result. Remember the $6/gallon and $15 McDonald dinner scenario I was talking half year ago? Nobody is laughing now, isn't there?

2. Even if Iran has nuclear right now. tactically speaking they will use it as deterrent or retaliation. (in relationship to US) So it would be, US can start advancing, but nuking bases will be a fair game for Iran.

If Iran want to cause damage, they would have launch global banking and oil supply attack instead of nuclear. Far cheaper and more effective.

Iran does not have enough nuke to initiate nuclear war. They would need about 15K heads and proven long range delivery system. (aka, the size of Russia)

that is assuming they can get their act together producing large scale nuke weapon program.

A handful nuke only serve as deterrent period. The logical cost analysis says so.

Iranian nuke in relation to Israel however...

well, it's different story altogether.

Iran will reach military parity against Israel within a decade if they make the right move.

-------

so it is time for the neocon to see the logical reality of their action.

They can keep pushing war with Iran, but they will ultimately forever redraw domestic political landscape.

tons15

the more I hear or read voices like 'Andy' - the more I am disgusted; i am reminded of the behavior of the HIV virus which avoids recognition by organisms immune response.

Cold War Zoomie

The "Key Judgments" released by the intelligence community last week begin with a dramatic assertion: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." This sentence was widely interpreted as a challenge to the Bush administration policy of mobilizing international pressure against alleged Iranian nuclear programs. It was, in fact, qualified by a footnote whose complex phraseology obfuscated that the suspension really applied to only one aspect of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (and not even the most significant one): the construction of warheads.

The actual footnote from the NIE:

1 For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.

NIE

I cannot say for certain that Dr. K's "interpretation" of the footnote is accurate. So, how will I judge his op-ed?

First, it's full of weasle words and phrases such as "appears", "might" and "Is it unreasonable to assume..." So, here's my counter-argument:

1. Appears not to the intel agencies.
2. Might not.
3. Yes, it is unreasonable to assume.

Really, all I have left is a judgement of the guy's credibility. That includes who he hangs out with.

He's not credible, and neither are his friends.

Problem is, the intel agencies have their own fare share of credibility problems. This is where the media should be helping out people like me - Mr. Average Voter in the Republic - by bringing in experts and trying the best they can to establish who is credible and who isn't. Basically, trying to determine The Truth.

But they haven't been honorable players in this mess, either.

Our entire political system is broken. It will take some sort of mass uprising to fix it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

March 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad