Iran to the UNSC

Wednesday, March 08, 2006
The IAEA completed its report for the UNSC today with as stultifying language as ElBaradei has ever used, the IAEA can't "conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report to diplomats at the agency today. The Vienna-based IAEA voted Feb. 4 to report Iran to the UN Security Council pending ElBaradei's latest assessment.

The US called for a UNSC meeting as soon as possible and EU (and Russian) support for sanctions appears steady.

Iran continues to bluff and bluster while Israel Israel promises to act if the UNSC does not.

A review of NATO actions in Serbia may be in order for those who wonder what type of response might be generated against continued Iranian defiance. Also note that the campaign was conducted without either a UNSC action or Congressional approval.

3 comments:

Knucklehead said...

Anybody know if we've got deep penetrators and sub-2Kt nukes in inventory yet? Just askin'.

terrye said...

kncuk:

What do they call those things... spears? In fact I heard there was a kind of bomb that does not even use explosives. It goes deep and just collapses everything.

I heard the Pentagon was considering using them in NK.

Knucklehead said...

Terrye,

The physics of "bunker busting" are a tough nut to crack. Penetrating hardened facilities to roughly 100 or 150 feet is feasible with "spears" if they are made of the right material and shaped properly and the necessary velocity can be achieved and controlled (can't go too fast or too slow). 30, 50, 60 ft. is "easy" - that's the bunker buster stuff you see on History Channel.

But punching a hole in something to a depth of 100 ft. or so doesn't guarantee much. Presumably you need to also destroy what's in there and, of course, it may be buried deeper than you can penetrate. That's where some serious explosives come into play.

To guarantee you destroy what needs destroying you have to get into 100s of kilotons of explosive blast range. That's "small nukes" territory.

An alternative is semi-permanently close the entry and ventilation points but that has a whole big range of problems. A clever bunker-builder (and the Russians and Germans surely fall into that category) will build redundancy into the ventilation - some air holes that aren't used until needed and, therefore, would be nearly impossible to detect and target.