How to build an atomic warhead: the IAEA Iran report.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

How to build an atomic warhead: the IAEA Iran report.
by Ari Siletz
10-Nov-2011
 

The Novemeber 8 2011 IAEA report effectively takes the reader through the basic steps of making a nuclear warhead, from uranium enrichment and detonation principles to missile nose cone engineering and delivery altitude. It even touches on a problem associated with the deep shaft needed to test the bomb. At each step, the report cites evidence that the IRI has been working on these specific problems. The nuclear project organizational chart that IAEA intel has pieced together is impressive and the work that has been done to eliminate alternative explanations for this work is convincing. Despite the apparent thoroughness, the only evidence I was able to crosscheck independently fell apart quickly.

Page 9 of the annex to the report says, “The Agency has strong indications that the development by Iran of the high explosives initiation system, and its development of the high speed diagnostic configuration used to monitor related
experiments, were assisted by the work of a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable in these
technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career with this
technology in the nuclear weapon programme of the country of his origin. “

The name of this foreign expert is Vyacheslav Danilenko, Ukranian by nationality. In the 1990s (and perhaps later) Danilenko was in Iran to help develop Iran’s  nano technology industry, specifically the production of nano diamonds. Applications include, dry lubricants, polishing compounds, engine oil additives, material reinforcement… It is a commonly known fact that Iran has a strong interest in nano technology.  Nano diamond manufacture however involves detonating precisely timed explosives, also a key process in triggering a nuclear bomb. Admittedly, very suspicious dual use. The IAEA however seems to have taken the word of the “member state” in that Danilenko “worked for much of his career with this technology in the nuclear weapon programme of the country of his origin.” Yes, but mostly no!

Danilenko did work in the former Soviet Union’s Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics. This institute did work on nuclear warheads. But it also worked on other things, including nano diamonds. Danielko is a recognized scientist in the area of nano diamond research with many publications in the field and none have to do with weapons making. The suddenly famous Danilenko has said his work has nothing to do with making bombs. Actually it does, indirectly—precisely timed super-strong explosions in a vessel; just what you would need to trigger a nuclear bomb. So he’s not being straightforward either. On the other hand, unlike IAEA, his cagey statements can’t provoke a war.

By omitting relevant mitigating information about Danilenko, the IAEA has discredited its own report. The agecy has shown bias in its williingness to accept unquestioningly the agenda prone word of the "member state." Unfortunate, as this little lie let’s the IRI get away with its big lie...that is if they are lying and the IAEA is "not." 

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Ari SiletzCommentsDate
چرا مصدق آسوده نمی خوابد.
8
Aug 17, 2012
This blog makes me a plagarist
2
Aug 16, 2012
Double standards outside the boxing ring
6
Aug 12, 2012
more from Ari Siletz
 
Anahid Hojjati

good blog Ari, however

by Anahid Hojjati on Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:44 AM PST

iri has shown its nature and i have no doubt they want nuclear technology for its military use, otherwise they would not get themselves into being bothered by all this. the fact that they pursue nuclear technolgy even though they are under scrutiny proves that they find it worthwhile. since iri has shown its disregard for improving life of iranians, it is clear what goals they have. 


  •  
Mammad

Thank you Mehrdad

by Mammad on Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:22 PM PST

Mammad


  •  
Bavafa

Mammad agha: Great report and scrutiny…

by Bavafa on Fri Nov 11, 2011 08:41 AM PST

By the Frontline piece.  With the long history of the US to fabricate “evidence” and “reports” as we saw how they were used to justify and fool the masses to invade Iraq, they have a long road ahead to mend and reestablish their credibility.  Unfortunately, they are continuing the same path as GWB and before him and even more unfortunate that masses just care less if war was brought to another country as long as they are safe and with a full stomach.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad


  •  
Tiger Lily

Why bother, when you can split atoms in the kitchen?

by Tiger Lily on Fri Nov 11, 2011 08:33 AM PST


  •  
Mammad

It was not Gareth Porter who disacovered the lie

by Mammad on Fri Nov 11, 2011 08:00 AM PST

It was Moon in Albama, a progressive site, which did it first. Gareth, a good friend, simply reported it and gave credit to it. More importantly though, 

Vyacheslav Danilenko has denied helping Iran with its nuclear program.

//www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/994063...

Danilenko, 76, told the Russian newspaper Kommersant,
"I am not a nuclear physicist and am not the father of the Iranian
nuclear program." He confirmed that his field of research is nanodiamond
production.

To read a complete analysis of the report, which has disappointed many (!), see,   //www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbure...   Even the U.S. reaction to the report has been very moderate.

Mammad


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Mohammad Ala

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 11, 2011 06:38 AM PST

 

You realize there is a real simple fix to the whole problem. Get out of NPT then there are no more inspections. The idea was for nations to get peaceful technology in return. If you don't get anything why remain in a deal. 

Personally I think nuclear is a dead end and would not waste time on it. Better put our work on something else.  The future of energy is in Solar and renewables not nuclear. Dirty vile technology better put aside and forgotten.

Wisest move is to give up nuclear in return for investment in renewables. This will never happen with IRI. But it is definitely the right thing to do. It would shut up the West. Save Iran from accidents. And bring in new technology and money.


  •  
Mohammad Ala

Cosy US Relationship with IAEA Chief

by Mohammad Ala on Fri Nov 11, 2011 06:01 AM PST

Ari jan;

Thanks for your time and efforts.  Here are two more sources:

//www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11387/

//www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29664.htm


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Hooshang

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 11, 2011 05:30 AM PST


VPK, the  article below argues and shows why the US and the West are not up to overthrowiing IR

I have suggested on other blogs they are going about a systematic change. Right now it is not the turn of IRI. But they want add sanctions and weaken the regime. When they are done with the other smaller nations they will get to IRI. 

It is becoming clear that Obama prefers "domestic" overthrow of regimes. Not an overt attack like Bush used to do. Therefore I figure they just want to push up the misery index for now.


  •  
All-Iranians

Dear Ari

by All-Iranians on Fri Nov 11, 2011 04:35 AM PST

Excellent findings. Thanks.


  •  
default

...

by Hooshang Tarreh-Gol on Thu Nov 10, 2011 09:36 PM PST

VPK, the  article below argues and shows why the US and the West are not up to overthrowiing IR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ در حال حاضر دولت آمریکا فقط خواستار غیر نظامی شدن سیاست هسته ای رژیم است و به هیچوجه قصد کمک به سرنگونی آنرا ندارد.
واقعیت
این است که دولت آمریکا و دیگر دولت های غربی اگرچه از سرکشی های جمهوری
اسلامی دل خوشی ندارند، اما شواهد نشان می دهد که خیال سرنگونی جمهوری
اسلامی را هم در سر ندارند. حداقل به این دلیل که تاکنون نخواسته اند و یا
نتوانسته اند جایگزینی برای آن آماده کنند، و البته نمی خواهند سرنوشت این
کشور مهم منطقه را هم به دست روندهای غیر قابل پیشبینی بسپارند.

//www.payam.se/index.php?option=com_content&v...


  •  
AMIR1973

Gareth Porter's own credibility is highly dubious

by AMIR1973 on Thu Nov 10, 2011 08:23 PM PST

As he has a proven track record of whitewashing the mass deaths of Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge (1-2 million) and justifying the Khmer Rouge policies. I am as likely to believe Porter as that of other "independent" individuals, such as George Galloway, the Leveretts, Mohammad Marandi, Dilip Hiro, etc. 


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

It doesn't matter

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Thu Nov 10, 2011 08:23 PM PST

 

The nuclear thing is a red herring and is just made up. The issue is that USA wants IRI gone. They have served their purpose and now it is time for them to go. But dictators have a way of not getting the message.

Same happened to Saddam; Ghaddafi; and so on. If they would just get the message and move on it is a lot simpler. But the writing is on the wall that US wants IRI gone. They will make whatever report they need ture of false does not matter.

Once they decided IRI has to go it was over. Now it is a matter of executing a plan. The sanctions to create discontent and make people mad. Ideally Iranians would rise; with NATO air support throw out Khamenei. 


  •  
Bavafa

Dear Ari, A great finding and report...

by Bavafa on Thu Nov 10, 2011 08:09 PM PST

I find your last paragraph the most intriguing and relevant yet unfortunate piece of this whole puzzle.  Who ever thought that the credibility of the International community guided by the US will be actually less than IRI?

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad


  •  
default

False Information?

by Hooshang Tarreh-Gol on Thu Nov 10, 2011 07:35 PM PST

Did the Israelis Provide the IAEA False Information? Iran’s “Soviet Nuclear Scientist” Never Worked on Weapons

----------------------------------------------------------

by GARETH PORTER

//www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/10/irans-sovie...


  •