So you see this headline on Drudge (copied from the headline of the Bloomberg article it links to) and you think to yourself, "Holy crap, they could make a bomb in 16 days? We'd better nuke the crap out of them now," right? Then you click on the headline and read the article. Sure enough, the third paragraph is:
"Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
But wait - let's say after this bold statement you choose to continue reading the article for some odd reason. The very next paragraph:
Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month. (emphasis added)
So there's actually only 164 centrifuges at the moment. But wait, what's this, a little bit further down?
Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.
"We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.
271 days! Nuke the bastards!
All in all, the article agrees with this one in the New York Times, albeit with the far less punchier headline of, "Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away." All the facts are the same - the 3,000 newer centrifuges due to come online near the end of the year, the 50,000 planned for the future; what is different is how they choose to present it. Also interesting in the Times article is the reasoning Russia has for being against sanctions, which I've been wondering about for a bit:
The Russian stance against penalties highlighted the obstacles Washington faces in its effort to force a halt to Iran's nuclear program. A senior aide to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said yesterday that any effort to employ broad penalties against Tehran would backfire because "Iran's current president will use them for his benefit, and he will use them to consolidate public opinion around him."
Russia's business ties to Iran are probably the underlying motive. And yet, the statement against sanctions is, from what I know of their effectiveness, essentially correct; rather than weaken a regime, all they do is strengthen it by allowing those in power to monopolize the daily necessities of life. So what do you do? Beats the hell out of me; all I know is that the stuff they've tried in the past sure hasn't worked. Who was it that defined insanity as the expectation of a different outcome from repeating the same action over and over? Or maybe that's stupidity. It's one of those -tys.
1 comment:
bravo! I love it when someone thinks...which they - you know they, do not want us to do when they are tryingto et support for a war. Documentation also shows that Bush and crew were planning to invade Iran before Iraq.....long before now!
the most insane part is that Iran is as afraid of us...and Israel who really wants us to nuke them - for their own reasons...as we are of them! Check out the latest New Yorker on the hundreds of targets they plan to hit in Iran.....major woman/baby killing stuff. and do they think Iran, a very rich and proud country will welcome the American killers! Are we goingto go around bombing anyone who wants to equalize the equation with their own progress. From Iran's viewpoint, we are going to kill and attack them......of course they want a bomb - to protect themselves or to balance our insanity - talk about the US creating monsters! I lived in Iran many years....Iranians have the same problem we do.....unbalanced leaders thirsting for more power and ego glory. the majority of people are wonderful and peace-loving
Post a Comment