How convenient.

Reuters link

Quote:The comments cast doubt on previous assessments from some Western analysts who said the country had a low supply and sooner or later would need to import uranium, the raw material needed for its nuclear program.

Wonder if those assessments gave Obama/Kerry comfort in negotiating the deal.

Find a stockpile of Uranium ? Of course They did ! They and probably Obama knew it too. Iran Probably had a deal not to reveal it until after Obama left office so He could say "Iran didn't get the Bomb on My watch". Makes sense it went down like that and Iran couldn't wait to Rub it in Obama and Americas faces. I say Don't pay the Money, Ever !

My only concern would be if Kerry and Obama find that the new find is naturally 95% enriched, which I wouldn't put outside the realm of possibility, given the ongoing farce.

(09-13-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  My only concern would be if Kerry and Obama find that the new find is naturally 95% enriched, which I wouldn't put outside the realm of possibility, given the ongoing farce.

Does uranium occur that enriched naturally? I know next to nothing abiut uranium.

Raise you hand if you are surprised by this.

(09-13-2015 04:19 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  My only concern would be if Kerry and Obama find that the new find is naturally 95% enriched, which I wouldn't put outside the realm of possibility, given the ongoing farce.

Does uranium occur that enriched naturally? I know next to nothing abiut uranium.

It does not. You have to subject it to a process to get it into "usable" uranium, or so I understand. The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places so I am not surprised there is another deposit. Iran is a country rich with mineral resources.

(09-13-2015 08:05 PM)TSO Wrote:  The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places

Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:05 PM)TSO Wrote:  The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places

Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:05 PM)TSO Wrote:  The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places

Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.

Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:05 PM)TSO Wrote:  The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places

Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

Bless your heart.

(09-13-2015 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Raise you hand if you are surprised by this.

Surprise surprise surprise

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:05 PM)TSO Wrote:  The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places

Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.

Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

Of course we aren't going in. This whole agreement is predicated on the fact. In the end, this PR move will have zero negative consequences on Obama or the DNC. If Iran complies, then the agreement is seen as triumph of foreign policy and diplomacy. If Iran reneges then proponents will simply state that the deal was the best and only chance to prevent an Atomic Iran.

(09-14-2015 08:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Of course we aren't going in. This whole agreement is predicated on the fact. In the end, this PR move will zero negative consequences on Obama or the DNC. If Iran complies, then the agreement is seen as triumph of foreign policy and diplomacy. If Iran reneges then proponents will simply state that the deal was the best and only chance to prevent an Atomic Iran.

Agree. It's a PR move and nothing more. A toothless treaty that hasn't been properly vetted and has enough holes in it to be easily circumvented.

Inspectors say we want to go to A, B, and C. Iran says A and B are okay but no way you're going to C. Inspectors find nothing at A and B. Russia and France say, "Well they didn't find anything at A and B, so that means there's probably nothing at C." What next? It's the Saddam problem all over.

What troubles me is possible opportunity costs. Was there something worthwhile that we could have gotten for unfreezing their assets, instead of this?

(09-13-2015 04:19 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  My only concern would be if Kerry and Obama find that the new find is naturally 95% enriched, which I wouldn't put outside the realm of possibility, given the ongoing farce.

Does uranium occur that enriched naturally? I know next to nothing abiut uranium.

No. U-235 is the isotope that is useful for both nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and is about 0.7% of the uranium found in nature. that has to do with the physics of stars, not something that will occur in pockets here and there. Chemically, it reacts the same as other Uranium isotopes, so you can't separate it out chemically. You must convert it to a gas and use some means (generally centrifuge or laser) to separate the isotopes based on the fact that they have different masses U-235 has 3 fewer neutrons than U-238 and thus is slightly lighter, which makes up the bulk of natural uranium (3/235, or about 1.3% lighter). Basically, the only way you would find such a deposit in nature is if someone running illicit centrifuges dumped some of their product out in the woods somewhere, so I was being sarcastic.

Or did they????

Quote:DUBAI, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Preliminary exploration surveys for raw uranium in Iran are progressing well but it is too early to announce any discoveries, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran (AEOI) was quoted as saying on Sunday.

"Mr Salehi said aerial exploration surveys across the country are going well and the results are promising. Of course, after aerial surveys the work of ground exploration will begin," Kamalvandi said.

"At the moment these efforts are proceeding well, but for the final results and analysis we must wait until aerial and ground operations are finished throughout the country."

Salehi noted on Sunday that Iran had conducted aerial exploration of 63 percent of its territory and hoped to complete the work after four years.

Mineral prospectors often conduct wide aerial surveys to find promising areas before starting more detailed explorations on the ground.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters...z3ljbbh9l0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

(09-14-2015 09:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Of course we aren't going in. This whole agreement is predicated on the fact. In the end, this PR move will zero negative consequences on Obama or the DNC. If Iran complies, then the agreement is seen as triumph of foreign policy and diplomacy. If Iran reneges then proponents will simply state that the deal was the best and only chance to prevent an Atomic Iran.

Agree. It's a PR move and nothing more. A toothless treaty that hasn't been properly vetted and has enough holes in it to be easily circumvented.

Inspectors say we want to go to A, B, and C. Iran says A and B are okay but no way you're going to C. Inspectors find nothing at A and B. What next? It's the Saddam problem all over.

What troubles me is possible opportunity costs. Was there something worthwhile that we could have gotten for unfreezing their assets, instead of this?

Four American political prisoners comes to mind.

(09-14-2015 01:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 09:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 08:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Of course we aren't going in. This whole agreement is predicated on the fact. In the end, this PR move will zero negative consequences on Obama or the DNC. If Iran complies, then the agreement is seen as triumph of foreign policy and diplomacy. If Iran reneges then proponents will simply state that the deal was the best and only chance to prevent an Atomic Iran.

Agree. It's a PR move and nothing more. A toothless treaty that hasn't been properly vetted and has enough holes in it to be easily circumvented.

Inspectors say we want to go to A, B, and C. Iran says A and B are okay but no way you're going to C. Inspectors find nothing at A and B. What next? It's the Saddam problem all over.

What troubles me is possible opportunity costs. Was there something worthwhile that we could have gotten for unfreezing their assets, instead of this?

Four American political prisoners comes to mind.

Maybe They were "conservatives" so "O" didn't consider Their release important enough.

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:05 PM)TSO Wrote:  The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places

Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.

Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

Except, y'know, we KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD. And we went in because the Bush admin wanted us to! Yay!

(09-14-2015 08:47 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:05 PM)TSO Wrote:  The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places

Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.
Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

Except, y'know, we KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD. And we went in because the Bush admin wanted us to! Yay!

Except, no, we DIDN'T know. We had intel suggesting yes, we had other intel suggesting no, but we did not actually know. That's the problem with intel, it's always a best guess. We will end up in the same position with respect to Iran.

(09-14-2015 08:47 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:10 PM)TSO Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 08:05 PM)TSO Wrote:  The deposits like this exist in hard to reach/hard to assess places

Hard to reach/hard to assess... and hard to monitor.

No, not really. Enriching these uranium deposits takes a lot , and their atomic energy agency is already making it clear what they have and offering transparency . Monitoring is focus for them now - they do not want to screw up -!

You have more faith in the monitors than I do--and/or the Iranians. Once they get their assets unfrozen, they have no incentive to comply.

Prediction: We will end up in the same place with Iran that we did with Iraq. Not knowing whether they have nukes, and the rest of the world not cooperating with us regarding imposing sanctions. So do we go in unilaterally or not?

Except, y'know, we KNEW that Iraq didn't have WMD. And we went in because the Bush admin wanted us to! Yay!

B.S. No One but Saddam and His Henchmen Knew. His Stall tactics and Our slow build up to going into Iraq gave Him ample time to move stuff out of the country. Iraq even sent Their best fighter jets to Iran so They wouldn't be destroyed.