Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumIran was the first country to bomb a nuclear reactor.
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]
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.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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)According to MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Power" http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
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.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)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)there's more statistical evidence that possession deters use by others. I wouldn't characterize it as "failure."
bananas
(27,509 posts)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)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)... they have no right to be upset when someone else bombs theirs?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)I dont think conventional weapons would be used this time around.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear_weapons/technical_issues/the-robust-nuclear-earth.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear_weapons/technical_issues/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)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)Theyve 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
By Joby Warrick, Published: February 29
[font size=3]
In arguing their case, U.S. officials acknowledged some uncertainty over whether even the Pentagons 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 Irans 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)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)- Suitcase bomb: Seymour Hersh reports that Israel developed the ability to miniaturize warheads small enough to fit in a suitcase by the year 1973.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)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)Seymour Hersh is a pretty reliable source. If he says that Israel was able to miniaturize nuclear weapons by 1973, by 2012
I wouldnt bet against them.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)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)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 wouldnt assume that once we develop a nuclear bunker buster that will start the clock on Israels development.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)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)Because we cant make them ourselves?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)[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)Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)
bananas
(27,509 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)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.
#
bananas
(27,509 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)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.