Don’t believe the NIE … Iran will have a weapon far sooner, by following the South African model.

Island Turtle ^ | October 12, 2009 | Corky Boyd

[Corky Boyd]

Iran most likely will develop a nuclear capability far sooner than the NIE timeline of around 2015...

Much of the analysis both classified and from think tanks, mistakenly presupposes Iran will only pursue an implosion device...

In the mid 1970’s feeling threatened by Soviet expansion by its Cuban surrogates in Angola, the South African government started down the road to becoming a nuclear power. Similar to Iran today, they settled on the production of uranium as the fuel and developed a gun type of weapon. Between 1982 and 1989 they completed 6 lightweight (750 kg/1,650 lb) weapons with an estimated yield of 10-18 kt. (Hiroshima was 15 kt.)...

[wolfcreek]

One would be remiss to dismiss the fact Iran is already a nuclear power.

All this speculation is just another way to stall the inevitable.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Can they actually put a 1600 pound payload on the puny missiles they have launched so far? I don't think so. They could try to deliver a gun device by air, but to me it sounds like deploying such a weapon would constitute a Cleave Little defense posture.

[RayChuang88]

If I remember correctly, Little Boy, the U-235 "gunbarrel" bomb, weighed 8,900 lbs. and had a yield of around 15 kT of TNT.

If the Iranians build an "gunbarrel" device like Little Boy but with more modern materials, they could build a 10 kT device weighing about 3,000 lbs., which makes it possible to carry it on the F-4 fighters they still possess or the Su-24 Fencer fighter-bomber. However, it also means the Iranian missiles won't be able to lift such a heavy warhead for long ranges unless they use their biggest missile.

[pnh102]

This is silly. If the USA could develop a nuclear weapon in about 6 years with no help from outsiders it is wrong to conclude that Iran could do it in more time with outside help.

[Grut]

Let’s not overlook that possessing nukes give a theocracy that thinks well of suicide bombs the means to build a doomsday device. “Attack us and everyone dies” would put Iran in a pretty strong strategic position without any need for a delivery system at all.

[Rockingham]

This is a well considered analysis that is hard to dispute. In systematically acquiring the nuclear infrastructure needed to make a bomb, Iran must be ready to defeat potential international pressure and prevent a preemptive attack. This leads to a requirement that Iran must be ready with a timely sudden “breakout” build of a handful of completed weapons. A gun type bomb is well suited to this strategy. Once Iran lets it be known that they have a weapon, any coalition against it can be broken up by selective pressure and threats.

[Oatka]

Let’s not overlook that possessing nukes give a theocracy that thinks well of suicide bombs the means to build a doomsday device. “Attack us and everyone dies” would put Iran in a pretty strong strategic position without any need for a delivery system at all.

I was thinking that, given that area's attitude, all they have to say is "Go ahead and nuke us 'till we glow. We are willing to die for our cause. But, we will get one in on you first. We are ready to lose all of Iran. Are you willing to lose ONE American city?"

[Eye of Unk]

I am convinced Iran has had a nuclear device in some form for over a year now, unlike the NORKs Iran does not want to fire one off because any nuclear device detonated is immediately analyzed and can be dissected to what the yield, efficiency and where the uranium came from.

Iran does not want to use it as a propaganda tool like North Korea, they just want to USE it against Israel or anything of a high value American target. if anything and the Iranians are very very good craftsmen are making smaller portable copies of at the least several dozen “back-pack” versions and most likely plan a coordinated attack upon America at a strategic vulnerable point where down range fallout is maximized.