U.K. alleges Iran is "testing missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload"

This is an old, recycled lie.

Hague says that the missiles can carry a nuclear payload.

Uzi Rubin, the former head of Israel's Arrow anti-missile shield program, had this to say about the Shahab-3 missile, one of Iran's most advanced:

"I must be clear on one important point here. The new triconic warhead [of the Shahab-3]is not a move toward accommodating a nuclear warhead.”

See pages 95 to 151 here for full details. See page 147 for Rubin quote:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39038338/Pierre-Goldschmidt-Critique

It is impossible for any of Iran's missiles to carry a nuclear weapon. In fact, they keep making the RV smaller, which is making it more and more impossible. Why does Iran keep making the RV of their missiles smaller when they would need to make it larger if they wanted it to carry a nuke?

Imbeciles.

Jihad Watchers, here is a more honest article about Uzi Rubin, written by Rubin himself:

"The Global Range of Iran's Ballistic Missile Program"

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-26.htm

One quote from the article:

"Iran's political leadership is now aiming toward global power projection in the name of Islam, demanding recognition that Islam comprises 25 percent of humanity and should occupy its rightful place in decision-making in world affairs. Statements like this are not about self-defense."

Tom Davis:
Rubin said nothing in your article that contradicts what I quoted. Rubin knows that Iran's missiles cannot carry nukes. Rubin knows that what Hague said in this thread is a lie; crude propaganda. Unless Iran is going to ship their nukes to Israel via FedEx, they have no way to deliver them. Guess what? Maybe the reason Iran keeps building their RV's smaller is because the don't have, and are not planning to have, nuclear weapons. If they were developing nukes, wouldn't they also be developing a way to get them to Israel other than FedEx?

As far as your quote goes, Iran and Islam certainly should take their rightful place in decision-making in the world. WHy shouldn't they? In the 30-plus years Iran has been an Islamic country, they have shown themselves to be peaceful, and have attacked no one. Can we say the same about the US? I could list the countries that we have bombed since Iran has become a country, but I have other things to do the rest of the day. The only reason Usrael demonizes and tells lies about Iran is because they do not follow the orders of Usrael. Iran acts in their own interest. If you are a US citizen, the idea that the country you live in should act in its own interest and not according to the orders of a foreign country probably seems strange to you.

Oh, of course Iran is only interested in peaceful uses of nuclear energy research. Never mind those tunnels and missiles. Perspicacious, unbiased, truth-seeking journalists like Seymour Hersh, Roger Cohen, and Harold Meyerson have assured us that the Iranian government members are so pacifistic they make 1966-era Haight Ashbury-dwelling flower children look like the Terminator by comparison. Who am I to say otherwise.

//What is your background?//

I like to play guitar, swim, and read.

//Why are you such a staunch defender of the Islamic Republic of Iran//

Iran has never done anything to anyone. I have no problem with them. I respect that they refuse to be a puppet state.

//and Hezbollah?//

I defend any groups' right to resist invading armies.

//What led you to defend them?//

Unbiased analysis.

//What do you hope to accomplish by posting here?//

It is entertaining for me to present the truth to people who cannot face it, then watch them squirm. I realize that it will have no effect on anyone here. My papers are pretty widely read by the general public, however. Do a Google search on "gates of ijtihad" and look at the second hit. I am above Spencer!

dave742 wrote:

"Rubin said nothing in your article that contradicts what I quoted."

And:

"Rubin knows that Iran's missiles cannot carry nukes."

Rubin wrote:

"A space launcher that can orbit a satellite weighing 300 kg can be altered into an ICBM that could drop more than 300 kg on Washington."

I ask JW readers, what could Rubin possibly have in mind other than nukes? Caviar? And are we to believe dave742's internal contradictions?

==============================

dave742 keeps repeating a mantra that the Iranian program is making the warheads "smaller and smaller".

If true this is almost proof of nuclearization of the payload. Use of conventional, chemical, or biological weapons requires maximum volume to be effective on a missile. Reducing the size of the RV for these weapons is counterproductive, even with terminal guidance (which they likely do not have). I've been within a foot of a Pershing II RV ablative casing, and it was small: it could easily fit in a....um, better not go there.

If dave742's information is accurate it means the Iranians are getting confident they can build small nukes. It also likely means that they are planning on adding decoys to the separation stage to ensure that the warheads get past the Israeli ABM counterattack. But they may not stop there: it is usually nearly as economical to install MRVs (multiple re-entry vehicles - MIRVs are probably out of their reach for now) on a missile as it would be to install decoys. Smaller RVs would allow for this option.

In any case, a missile can be fitted with different warheads, so "smaller and smaller" doesn't mean the "larger" RVs will be discarded. Recall that nuclear weapons development in most countries have pursued several parallel paths, not just one (the South African program was the only exception). All evidence tell us that is exactly what Iran is doing.

dave742 also wrote:

"Unless Iran is going to ship their nukes to Israel via FedEx, they have no way to deliver them."

Everyone knows that covert delivery is very much an option, so this statement is laughable.

//"A space launcher that can orbit a satellite weighing 300 kg can be altered into an ICBM that could drop more than 300 kg on Washington."//

First of all, this statement is not about missiles, which is the subject of the thread. Secondly, this is simply wild speculation meant to scare the ignorant masses. Iran has every right to launch satellites. If people want to use this for baseless propaganda that Iran is going to nuke the world , it is none of Iran’s concern.

//And are we to believe dave742's internal contradictions?//

What internal contradictions? This thread is about Iranian missiles carrying nukes. When Rubin was presented with this issue, he said there is no basis for it.

//dave742 keeps repeating a mantra that the Iranian program is making the warheads "smaller and smaller". If true this is almost proof of nuclearization of the payload.//

Wrong. It means the exact opposite. If Iran was able to make a nuclear weapon, it would be a crude one, and it would be very large. They would need as much room as possible. Rubin agrees with me, and like all other non-imbeciles, he realizes that the shape and size of Iran’s new missiles is for accuracy:

“This warhead has less volume than the conical warhead Iran was using before. And the diameter of the central section is about 60 cm, which is very constrained for a nuclear bomb. It could be a gun type, but that would be heavy. I’m guessing that the conical nosecone had a stability problem that was stressing the missile and harming its accuracy. The triconic shape is naturally stable if designed correctly, which would improve accuracy. I’d say the new shape is designed for simplicity and accuracy, not necessarily for nuclear capability. …….The newest version appears an attempt to improve even more the stability and accuracy of the RV, but in the cost of reduced volume for the warhead …the newer, baby-bottle-shaped RV is believed to be more accurate that the 3A and 3B models and provide an improved lift to drag ratio.”//

//Use of conventional, chemical, or biological weapons requires maximum volume to be effective on a missile. Reducing the size of the RV for these weapons is counterproductive…//

Wrong. If you are using conventional weapons, accuracy is much more important than size of the explosion. If your explosion is twice as large but misses the target by 2,000 feet, the bigger explosion does not do you much good. If your explosion is smaller, but the smaller explosion hits your target, the result is much more effective. Rubin and other explain again and again that Iran’s missile development is very concerned with accuracy. If Iran was going to put nukes on their missiles, why would they be so concerned about accuracy? If a nuke misses the target by a couple thousand feet, it really does not matter.

Here is Rubin talking about Iran’s missiles:

“From a western point of view, long range ballistic missiles make sense only when they carry a nuclear weapon. This is a legacy of Cold War thinking. The Iranians don’t see it that way. Missiles are for them what both tactical and strategic air power are for the West.”

Iran’s smaller RV’s will provide just as much impact as any single missile launched from a plane. This is how Iran views their missile program.

When Jane's Defense Weekly was pretending that the new nosecone was larger (even though it is actually smaller), they said that more room would be VITAL for any Iran nuke applicability:

“The missile has a modified nose section allowing it to hold a larger warhead and thus provide additional room for a nuclear device…Such extra room is vital as Iranian nuclear engineers would face major technical challenges in making the country's first nuclear weapon light enough and small enough 143 to fit on its existing missiles, particularly without benefit of having conducted full-scale nuclear weapons tests.”

Janes Defence Weekly say that extra room would be VITAL for an Iranian nuke, but Tom Davis says a smaller size is evidence for an Iranian nuke. How funny. Please E-mail Jane’s Defense and point out their error.

//In any case, a missile can be fitted with different warheads, so "smaller and smaller" doesn't mean the "larger" RVs will be discarded.//

Even the original conical design was much too small for any crude nuke. If Iran wanted to develop a missile for a nuke, it would have to be much, much larger than the original design. This is not happening.

//All evidence tell us that is exactly what Iran is doing.//

And all the evidence told you that Iraq has WMD. In reality, all the evidence says that Iran is developing conventional missiles.

//Everyone knows that covert delivery is very much an option, so this statement is laughable.//

Then why does the media fabricate so many lies about Iran’s missile program? Why don’t they stick with the FedEx propaganda story? Maybe Israel should refuse delivery of any packages from Iran.

And this is why I post here. It is very entertaining. I like when people try to convince me that Israeli missile experts and Jane's Defense Weekly are wrong. I get a big kick out of it.

dave742 quotes Uzi Rubin as saying:

"This warhead has less volume than the conical warhead Iran was using before. And the diameter of the central section is about 60 cm, which is very constrained for a nuclear bomb. It could be a gun type, but that would be heavy..."

All reports on Iran's nuclear program indicate that the uranium program is way ahead of the plutonium program, even accounting for the Stuxnet virus damage. Therefore it would make sense that a gun type would be in the cards, despite its inefficiencies.

===============================

Also, dave742 writes:

"If you are using conventional weapons, accuracy is much more important than size of the explosion. If your explosion is twice as large but misses the target by 2,000 feet, the bigger explosion does not do you much good."

This is true, but only if the target is military. Use of a conventionally armed missile against a city as a terror weapon, as Iran did against Iraq, and as Iraq did against several of its neighbors, does not require great accuracy. Also, great accuracy is likely not available to the Iranians today.

===============================

dave742 again:

"Janes Defence Weekly say that extra room would be VITAL for an Iranian nuke, but Tom Davis says a smaller size is evidence for an Iranian nuke. How funny. Please E-mail Jane’s Defense and point out their error."

There is no error. As I pointed out, Iran has multiple programs that are operating in parallel. Some development efforts may be slower to fruition than others, and this uncertainty must be a factor in their planning, so they must be pursuing multiple technical "solutions" at the same time. What dave742 is doing here is the equivalent of having evidence that Iran is executing nuclear missile project A and project B, then saying that the existence of A proves that B does not exist, and also the existence of B proves that A does not exist. This is really funny.

===============================

dave742 again:

"And all the evidence told you that Iraq has WMD."

But Iraq did have WMD. Here is evidence #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

===============================

dave742 again:

"I like when people try to convince me that Israeli missile experts and Jane's Defense Weekly are wrong."

No one is trying to convince dave742 of anything. That is not possible. I am posting to prevent him from convincing any honest minded person that he are right. And BTW, Rubin and Jane's are not wrong. What is wrong is the way he cherry-picks from them and, worse, wrings out any uncertainty from their analyses.

===============================

Finally:

"I get a big kick out of it."

I am sure that he does. His earlier posts show that he will get a big kick when Iran tests nuclear weapons. He might even get a big kick when the weapons are used, despite the lives lost, if it harms those Western countries that desires to see diminished.

that he desires to see diminished.

One more point. dave742 quotes Uzi Rubin as saying:

"This warhead has less volume than the conical warhead Iran was using before. And the diameter of the central section is about 60 cm, which is very constrained for a nuclear bomb..."

In 1956 - over fifty years ago - the U.S. tested a nuclear device code-named 'Swan', with a size of 29.5 cm X 58 cm and a weight of 47.6 kg.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

All your talk is 100% baseless allegation. The fact is that Iran's RV's for its missiles arer getting smaller. All reasonable people, including Rubin, state that if Iran were to ever make a nuke, (which there is absolutely no evidence of them doing), it would be a crude, large device. Rubin and others admit that Iran's missile development is geared towards making more accurate weapons. All available facts point towards Iran making and devlivering conventional weapons.

//Use of a conventionally armed missile against a city as a terror weapon, as Iran did against Iraq, and as Iraq did against several of its neighbors, does not require great accuracy//

Then why is Iran so concerned with making accurate weapons? You don't need accuracy for nukes or for general bombing, yet all experts admit that Iran's missile development is very concerned with accuracy (including getting guidance systems from China). Why?

"All reasonable people, including Rubin, state that if Iran were to ever make a nuke, (which there is absolutely no evidence of them doing), it would be a crude, large device."

Crude and large are not the same. Uranium gun devices are all crude but most have been small enough to fit into artillery shells.

"Then why is Iran so concerned with making accurate weapons?"

Improving accuracy improves the effectiveness of ALL types of warheads.

"You don't need accuracy for nukes..."

This statement runs counter to the entire developmental history of these weapons outside Iran, where nukes were constantly given greater accuracy. So Iran will be immune to the logic of the technology? Very doubtful.

"All your talk is 100% baseless allegation."

Not baseless at all, as any unbiased reader can see. As far as being allegations, yes they are. If the West continues to do nothing I am sure they will move into the realm of fact.

==========================

BTW, dave742 wrote "Then why does the media fabricate so many lies about Iran’s missile program?"

It would seem that he believes that the media is trying to create a war. Every time I look I see the media trying to discount the need to use weapons of war to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. What world is he living in?

//Crude and large are not the same.//

Jane's Defense:

“The missile has a modified nose section ALLOWING IT TO HOLD A LARGER WARHEAD AND THUS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ROOM FOR A NUCLEAR DEVICE...SUCH EXTRA ROOM IS VITAL as Iranian nuclear engineers would face major technical challenges in making the country's first nuclear weapon light enough and small enough 143 to fit on its existing missiles, particularly without benefit of having conducted full-scale nuclear weapons tests.”

Fine. Jane's Defense WEekly is wrong. Please E-mail them. They will be happy to hear from Tom Davis from Jihadwatch

//wrings out any uncertainty from their analyses//

What uncertainty am I wrining out of the anlyses given by Janes Defense weekly? They say that extra room would be VITAL for Iran to have if they wanted to use nukes in their missiles. What does the word VITAL mean to you?

Here is the uncertainty.

First, regarding plutonium weapons.

Jane's account is true IF the Iranians are designing nuclear weapons from a blank slate, using only the physics that are generally understood by everyone around the world.

Jane's account is not true IF the Iranians have obtained design information from other sources. There is real evidence to believe that design features of the U.S. W88 warhead are now in the hands of several governments, including Iran's. Even without that possibility, many design details are now open source. It is unlikely that Iran needs to replicate the Manhattan Project in every detail.

And, as I have repeated ad nauseam, Iran may very well be working on multiple designs at the same time (everyone else but South Africa always did) as a hedge against the uncertainty of failure, so Iran could well need multiple sizes and designs of RVs. Therefore, there is a sense in which Jane's may be both true and not at the same time, depending on which designs mature first, if at all.

I will be charitable and state that dave742 seems to have a definite problem with probabilistic thinking and with conditional logic. There is only one other explanation of how these possibilities always become certainties in his hands, and always in a way that favors Iran.

Also, how old is the Jane's report? Things change, you know. The Rubin article I linked to is already five years old, so his views may have changed.

Second, regarding uranium weapons, which are more likely to be introduced first.

The smallest know gun type device was fitted into a 15.5 cm artillery shell. This is MUCH smaller than the size of the "small" 60 cm RV cited by dave742. Mr. Rubin admits that the "new" RV could carry a gun type warhead, and I take him at his word. Someone may counter that the "new" RV "couldn't" carry a gun type device due to the size and weight of the Hiroshima bomb - the first gun type - but this would be false: that weapon was over-engineered in the interests of reliability (remember, it was not even tested before its use) and safety. These concerns need not be repeated with modern design knowledge.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery

Do you need even a shred of proof for any of your baseless allegations? Don't all of your baseless allegations fit for Sweden? Sweden may very well be working on multiple designs at the same time. There is real evidence to believe that design features of the U.S. W88 warhead are now in the hands of several governments, including Sweden's.

So when do we bomb Sweden?

"Don't all of your baseless allegations fit for Sweden?"

No they don't. Here's why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Anarak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Arak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Ardakan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Darkovin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Isfahan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Lashkar_Abad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Lavizan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Natanz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Parchin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Qom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Saghand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Tehran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_facilities_in_Iran#Yazd

I left off the handful of sites that are similar to those of Sweden. Sweden has nothing like this militarized industrial infrastructure. If fact even Pakistan's sites are not as militarized as are Iran's.

Finally, there is the question of motive. Sweden does not have a ruling party that has done this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_AMIA_bombing

Anyone who reads that last link will know that it is not true that Iran has not attacked anyone. The reader will know that Iran attacks who it can, where it can, and the weaker the target is the better.

So, Sweden is safe, at least until it becomes like Iran. There are fellows in Malmo who are working on that detail.

You are a freaking nitwit

I don't really read half of what you write. I just saw this as my last post was going through;

//Jane's account is true IF the Iranians are designing nuclear weapons from a blank slate, using only the physics that are generally understood by everyone around the world.//

I didn't realize that the Iranians are using their own physics! That's wild stuff!

Haaaaaaaaa!!!!

Imbecile.

BTW, I am writing a paper on the stupis AMIA bombing. Iran and hezbollah had nothing to do with it. Even if they did, however, this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

BTW, Parchin is addressed in my paper. It is a miitary site that has nothing to do with nucleat anything. You aree an imbecile

"BTW, Parchin is addressed in my paper. It is a miitary site that has nothing to do with nucleat anything."

The Iranian nuclear program MUST be designing and testing the conventional explosives that are needed for compression of the fissile materials. Parchin has been identified as a likely site for this effort, hence its addition to the Wiki article. This work has to be done somewhere, and no radioactive material need be present. Tell you what, readers, if dave742 is correct he can log into Wikipedia himself and delete the reference to Parchin after posting his evidence to the discussion page. Let's see if the other editors of the entry agree.

========================

"BTW, I am writing a paper on the stupis AMIA bombing. Iran and hezbollah had nothing to do with it. Even if they did, however, this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons"

It is extremely relevant. If Iran were a normal nation-state with a normal government few people would object to its nuclear program. It would be in the same category as Pakistan, at least before the insurgencies metastasized there. All evidence pins the Buenos Aries bombing on Iran, which proves that Iran is not a normal country. Again, if dave742 has earth-shaking evidence to prove otherwise he should edit the Wiki article to say so.

I'm sure he won't.

========================

"I didn't realize that the Iranians are using their own physics! That's wild stuff!"

Again, an example of a sad inability to properly use conditional reasoning. This one is so bad I don't think I need to enter a correction for the unbiased reader.