Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:16 PM Mar 2012

Iran was the first country to bomb a nuclear reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq#Iranian_attack

Iranian attack

Iran attacked and damaged the site on September 30, 1980, with two F-4 Phantoms, shortly after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War.[45] At the onset of the war, Yehoshua Saguy, director of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate, publicly urged the Iranians to bomb the reactor.[45][46] This was the first attack on a nuclear reactor and only the third on a nuclear facility in the history of the world. It was also the first instance of a preventive attack on a nuclear reactor which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon, though it did not achieve its objective as France later repaired the reactor.[17][46][47]

Trita Parsi, in the book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, writes that a senior Israeli official met with a representative of the Khomeini regime in France one month prior to the Israeli attack.[48] The source of the assertion is Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government employee. At the alleged meeting, the Iranians explained details of their 1980 attack on the site, and agreed to let Israeli planes land at an Iranian airfield in Tabriz in the case of an emergency.[48]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (1981-1997)

Blix became Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1981 and 1997 after Sigvard Eklund.

Blix personally made repeated inspection visits to the Iraqi nuclear reactor Osiraq before its attempted destruction by the Iranians, in 1980, and its eventual destruction by the Israeli Air Force in 1981 during Operation Opera. Although most agreed that Iraq was years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon, the Iranians and the Israelis felt any raid must occur well before nuclear fuel was loaded to prevent nuclear fallout. The attack was regarded as being in breach of the United Nations Charter (S/RES/487) and international law and was widely condemned. Iraq was alternately praised and admonished by the IAEA for its cooperation and lack thereof. It was only after the first Gulf War that the full extent of Iraq's nuclear programs, which had switched from a plutonium based weapon design to a highly enriched uranium design after the destruction of Osiraq, became known.

26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Iran was the first country to bomb a nuclear reactor. (Original Post) bananas Mar 2012 OP
The difference is, Iran was already at war with Iraq - the US and Israel armed both sides. leveymg Mar 2012 #1
In this forum, we discuss the pros and cons of different energy sources. bananas Mar 2012 #4
You can frame it however you like. But, draw your own conclusions, and we'll draw ours. leveymg Mar 2012 #6
My conclusions have been pretty accurate. bananas Mar 2012 #13
You're right about some of that, but use has no correlation at all with proliferation. Thank g-d - leveymg Mar 2012 #14
Deterrence failure rate ... bananas Mar 2012 #18
Your conclusions have been very accurate. kristopher Mar 2012 #25
Is this a prelude to... FBaggins Mar 2012 #2
It does read like that, doesn’t it? OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #5
I doubt there's any choice. FBaggins Mar 2012 #10
We don’t need to sell Israel nuclear warheads OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #15
Miniturizing a nuclear warhead is much more complicated than just having nukes. FBaggins Mar 2012 #17
Nuclear weapons and Israel OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #19
Again... that isn't the same thing FBaggins Mar 2012 #20
And in 40 years… OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #21
You seem to be missing the point. FBaggins Mar 2012 #22
No, I'm not missing the point at all OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #23
So they felt the need to purchase our conventional bunker munitions... FBaggins Mar 2012 #24
We buy blue jeans from China OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #26
Hmmm… according to the BBC… OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #3
Is the OP going to stick to his assertion that Sep. 30 was before June 7, 1980? (oops) leveymg Mar 2012 #7
September 30, 1980 is before June 7, 1981. nt bananas Mar 2012 #9
Are you going to stick to your assertion that 1981 is before 1980? nt bananas Mar 2012 #11
No. Point to you. leveymg Mar 2012 #12
BBC got it wrong. nt bananas Mar 2012 #8
For what it's worth OKIsItJustMe Mar 2012 #16

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
1. The difference is, Iran was already at war with Iraq - the US and Israel armed both sides.
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:29 PM
Mar 2012

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

The next war in the region likely won't be confined to the region, BTW, for anyone contemplating or seeking to justify some sort of historical replay of this part of it.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
4. In this forum, we discuss the pros and cons of different energy sources.
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:31 PM
Mar 2012

According to MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Power" http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.


I'm pointing out that both Iran and Israel considered the security risks stemming from proliferation so great that they both bombed Iraq's reactor.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
13. My conclusions have been pretty accurate.
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:09 PM
Mar 2012

Referring to the four problems identified by MIT:

1. I said that the industry cost estimates were way too low, MIT acknowledged that in their 2009 update.

2. I said we could expect a meltdown roughy every 10,000 reactor-years, and that with 440 reactors operating worldwide we could expect a meltdown about every 23 years; Fukushima happened 25 years after Chernobyl. (I've also pointed out that we're now in the wear-out phase and can expect an increased failure rate).

3. I've quoted Al Gore say that during his Vice Presidency every proliferation problem they had was related to a nuclear energy program; I've pointed to Martin Hellman's estimate that the deterrence failure rate is about 1% per year; I've quoted Obama's science advisor John Holdren in 1981 saying that the biggest environmental threat of nuclear energy is from nuclear proliferation. And now we have a proliferation problem with Iran related to its nuclear energy program.

4. I basically predicted the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations, I've quoted one of the MIT authors saying that Bush's GNEP reprocessing program was a "goofy idea", I've pointed to analysis by FAS and others; etc.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
14. You're right about some of that, but use has no correlation at all with proliferation. Thank g-d -
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:21 PM
Mar 2012

there's more statistical evidence that possession deters use by others. I wouldn't characterize it as "failure."

bananas

(27,509 posts)
18. Deterrence failure rate ...
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 04:31 PM
Mar 2012

this page on Martin Hellman's website has a couple of pdfs: http://nuclearrisk.org/risk.php

"The above quote is from a statement signed by seven prominent individuals, including two Nobel Laureates. That link will take you to the complete text of the statement and the list of Charter Signers. The statement summarizes the key ideas of a paper (PDF 1.8 MB) that appeared in March 2008 in the magazine of the national engineering honor society. While the paper has a few areas that use higher mathematics, it is possible to skip the math and still understand its main points:"

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
25. Your conclusions have been very accurate.
Thu Mar 8, 2012, 10:42 AM
Mar 2012

The way to go wrong is to accept information from the nuclear industry as valid.

I read this comment to a Guardian article and it seems somehow appropriate:
It's baffling that nuclear power is regarded as a gleaming, high-tech solution to energy generation - it's just a steam turbine run on the filthiest fuel imaginable. All the high-tech stuff does is to protect us from the waste, with varying degrees of success.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/07/uk-nuclear-risk-flooding

FBaggins

(26,757 posts)
10. I doubt there's any choice.
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:45 PM
Mar 2012

Using a nuclear weapon to stop another country's attempt to get a nuclear weapon... would be a tough sell.

Besides, isn't the theory that Israel will be the one to perform the attack? I know we recently sold them bunker-busting munitions, but I doubt we would sell them nuclear versions.

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
15. We don’t need to sell Israel nuclear warheads
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:39 PM
Mar 2012

They’ve already got them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/experts-irans-underground-nuclear-sites-not-immune-to-us-bunker-busters/2012/02/24/gIQAzWaghR_story.html

[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=5]Iran’s underground nuclear sites not immune to U.S. bunker-busters, experts say[/font]
By Joby Warrick, Published: February 29

[font size=3]…

In arguing their case, U.S. officials acknowledged some uncertainty over whether even the Pentagon’s newest bunker-buster weapon — called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator — could pierce in a single blow the subterranean chambers where Iran is making enriched uranium. But they said a sustained U.S. attack over multiple days would probably render the plant unusable by collapsing tunnels and irreparably damaging both its highly sensitive centrifuge equipment and the miles of pipes, tubes and wires required to operate it.

“Hardened facilities require multiple sorties,” said a former senior intelligence official who has studied the formerly secret Fordow site and who agreed to discuss sensitive details of U.S. strike capabilities on the condition of anonymity. “The question is, how many turns do you get at the apple?”

U.S. confidence has been reinforced by training exercises in which bombers assaulted similar targets in deeply buried bunkers and mountain tunnels, the officials and experts said.

U.S. officials have raised the necessity of multiple strikes as they warn Israel against a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, the officials said. While Israel is capable of launching its own bunker-buster bombs against Fordow, it lacks the United States’ more advanced munitions and the ability to wage a bombing campaign over days and weeks, American officials and analysts said.

…[/font][/font]

FBaggins

(26,757 posts)
17. Miniturizing a nuclear warhead is much more complicated than just having nukes.
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:59 PM
Mar 2012

Nuclear "bunker busters" are purpose-built munitions, not just adaptions of existing warheads.

My understanding is that they have bombs and a few dozen IRV-type warheads as well as artillery shells. You can't just strap a penetrator tip on one of these and expect it to work.

What I do remember seeing five or six years ago was a speculation in the press that Israel could use conventional munitions to punch a hole in the ground and then deliver a nuke into that hole... but it was pretty quickly debunked (and assumed to be propaganda).

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
19. Nuclear weapons and Israel
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:19 PM
Mar 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#Other
[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=3]…
  • Suitcase bomb: Seymour Hersh reports that Israel developed the ability to miniaturize warheads small enough to fit in a suitcase by the year 1973.
…[/font][/font]

FBaggins

(26,757 posts)
20. Again... that isn't the same thing
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:34 PM
Mar 2012

Obviously a warhead that fits into a 175mm artillery round might fit in a suitcase too...

...but these aren't D-cell batteries that can be used in anything that can hold them. They have to be designed to survive penetration. The fact that someone thought they "developed the ability to" do something isn't the same thing as currently having "bunker buster" nukes. Even the US only started looking at the one you linked to about a decade ago.

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
21. And in 40 years…
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 06:06 PM
Mar 2012

Seymour Hersh is a pretty reliable source. If he says that Israel was able to miniaturize nuclear weapons by 1973, by 2012…

I wouldn’t bet against them.

FBaggins

(26,757 posts)
22. You seem to be missing the point.
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:02 PM
Mar 2012

It isn't just an issue of how small the thing is.

It also isn't an issue of someone saying they're were "able" to do something.

We were able to do it decades ago... but didn't.

You've found lots of sites talking about Israel's nuclear capability... can you find one that says they ever tried to make a ground-penetrating nuke? Anyone speculating that they have one? You can't just say "they have nukes" and "they could make a small one"... you have to have a reason to believe that they produced this specific type.

The only sites I've ever seen with such speculation were the l-fringe types (aliens, "west coast uninhabitable from Fukushima", chemtrail, etc). One even speculated that the explosion in Fukushima unit 3 was a nuclear bunker buster. Did you know that Israel caused the tsunami in Japan with a deep sea nuclear explosion to punish them for supporting Iran? I sure didn't.

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
23. No, I'm not missing the point at all
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 07:47 PM
Mar 2012

I believe it quite possible that Israel has developed a suitable warhead.

Israel has felt it faced a more imminent threat than the US.

I wouldn’t assume that once we develop a “nuclear bunker buster” that will start the clock on Israel’s development.

FBaggins

(26,757 posts)
24. So they felt the need to purchase our conventional bunker munitions...
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 08:13 PM
Mar 2012

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)

...but have a nuke version that they're happy with?

Seems like a stretch.

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
3. Hmmm… according to the BBC…
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:27 PM
Mar 2012
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=5]1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor[/font]

[font size=3]The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.



The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to sources in the French atomic industry.

…[/font][/font]

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
7. Is the OP going to stick to his assertion that Sep. 30 was before June 7, 1980? (oops)
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:38 PM
Mar 2012

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
12. No. Point to you.
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 02:45 PM
Mar 2012

Illustrates problem with relying on other people's eyes for such details. Touche.
#
Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_OperaCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
On June 7, 1981, a flight of Israeli Air Force F-16A fighter aircraft, with an escort of ... the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June of 1981 was explicitly ... the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program.
#

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
16. For what it's worth
Wed Mar 7, 2012, 03:43 PM
Mar 2012

The two operations seem to have been of different magnitudes.

i.e. “two F-4 Phantoms” -vs- “An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers.”

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Iran was the first countr...