The comparison with the Manhattan Project is interesting. It's not unfair to say that the fundamental secret of a fission bomb is that one could be built.

OTOH, those bombs were quite physically large and heavy. Far more powerful US warheads are too heavy to pick up, but are the size of a medium office trash can. Apparently, one of the most sensitive things about the state-of-the-art W88 warhead is that its shape and weight distribution are very good from a standpoint of missile weight and balance, and very hard from the nuclear design standpoint.

A very big question, for any potential nuclear weapon, is how to get it mated to an available and reliable missile. Miniaturizing nuclear weapons is the really hard part, and may not even require much nuclear material -- it's a question of design of high explosive and non-nuclear components, such as the tamper and reflector. There are aspects of the fissionable pit that do have quite a bit to do with its geometry. Plutonium is a weird metal about some of its mechanical characteristics, and whether or not there is a good simulant is not discussed.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

To which a response, after having gone through the same intellectual rigor, would be "Abort the fetus now, before it grows up to be a Neocon." What a bunch of idiots.

We should be grateful that it now appears that Bush will now finish his term without bombing Iran. This does appear to be a consensus that is developing among the more rational analysts. Though it will be amusing to watch Bolton, Ledeen and their ilk twitch and rave in protest I think we will see the more opportunistic neocon types declare victory and proclaim Bush a great leader in forcing the Iranians to relinquish their weapons program. These guys can turn on a dime without acknowledging a thing.

One of Bush's claims that he was only fully briefed on the NIE last week appears to be disputed by what Israeli Defense Minister Barak said on Israel's Army radio this morning:

"Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Israel's assessment is that Iran did stop work on its nuclear bomb in 2003, just as the United States announced - but that it resumed its efforts sometime afterwards.

Barak, a former Israeli Prime Minister, says the U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran has stopped work on its nuclear program is not shared by Israel. "Iran did stop its nuclear program for a time in 2003," Barak told Army Radio on Tuesday morning, "but in our assessment, it resumed its work at a certain point." He would not state when that occurred.

Barak said that intelligence assessments "are, by definition, not absolute. The U.S. assessment does not jibe with ours. When I was in Annapolis, and in a previous visit a month before, I met with all the senior Administration officials, and with European intelligence officials, and we discussed this issue."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124460

There have been stories in the Israeli media warning that the US position on Iran, including the possibility of a military strike, was "softening". I wonder if the NIE conclusions were what prompted that speculation.

Despite the claims by Barak that Israeli intelligence is at odds with the NIE, the following quote suggests that the Israeli intel wasn't enough to sway the US intelligence community:

"Top Israeli officials have been meeting regularly with U.S. counterparts for closed-door discussions on Iran. The former Israeli intelligence analyst said the NIE's conclusions suggested Israel has had a problem winning over the Americans: "Surely if we had hard proof that Iran was about to go nuclear, it would have affected the report's conclusions?"

The retired diplomat pointed to Israel's September 6 air strike on northern Syria as a possible precedent for an attack on Iran."
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0453701120071204?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

The latest information on the Syrian watchamacallit suggests that it was a joint US/Israeli exercise in "network warfare". If so, this may help to explain the widespread electronic anomalies affecting the region beginning on Sept 6.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw112607p2.xml

Despite the obvious conclusions that the NIE will abort a strike on Iran, I am not too sure that's the case.

The IAEA issued a press statement today that notes the new NIE is consistent with their own assessment of Iran's nuclear threat.

4 December 2007 |He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran. [emphasis mine.]

It's easy to see why the Iranians don't want to "come clean" about a nuclear program. Possession of a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to a US attack is not an irrational move on their part. Even Israel came to that conclusion.

However, the report states that own must assume that a nuclear Iran will act logically, rationally evaluating the price and risks involved in its actions, and will not act out of religious-ideological motives. If one make this assumption, then one appreciates that Iran's motives for acquiring nuclear weapons "are defensive, [and are to be used] against Iraq in the past and against the U.S. today."

Given the track records of Ledeen and John Bolton versus the IAEA, why would anyone believe the former?

...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

So who's intelligence is good, the US's or Israels? Why do you accept the fact that this new NIE is any good?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

When Apollo 13 was starting in a movie theater, a boy ahead of me whispered "They're going to be in real trouble, if they think Forrest Gump is a rocket scientist."

hcberkowitz, What are you saying?

You asked why this NIE might be good. In my opinion, it is consistent with available technical information about Iranian nuclear and missile development.

There has been a great deal of fearmongering when it was fairly obvious, to anyone with a reasonable technical knowledge of the relevant subjects, that the Iranians were not close to a meaningful capability. The hysteria about preemptively attacking them was just that: hysteria, or, perhaps cynical manipulation.

Did you want to get more specific on how this NIE makes technical sense?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The best thing about this NIE is that it is a clear slap in the face to the Bushoob administration from the intelligence community. Just weeks after the Moron-in-Chief was trying to scare us with WW3 comments, the intel folks come out publicly and throw cold water on him. It was fun hearing the jerk stumble over himself trying to keep his lie going.

This is the clearest indication to date, that the right-wing boobs have lost the ability to threaten anyone.

no sooner do I say

I think we will see the more opportunistic neocon types declare victory and proclaim Bush a great leader

interesting to note that TIME thinks Bush is happy that the NIE says Iran stopped development. Maybe he means what he says when he says striking Iran would be a last resort.....?

Actually if the imbecile wants to declare victory and THE withdraw I won't get in his way. But it is almost endearing how his little minions remain faithful to their Big Brother.

I seem to remember Israel helping us out with intelligence on Iraq, too.

From Guardian: The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

My personal National Intelligence Estimate- There's not much of it in D.C.

That, and how attacking Iran will usher in a new era of democracy in the Middle East.

It'll be a cakewalk, too--they'll shower us with flowers--and Iranian oil revenues will more than cover the cost.

J. McCutchen

How convenient! It's treason I tell ya - TREASON! Bush/Cheney couldn't have aided and abetted enemies of the United States any more if they tried - so they must have.

Treason Complete

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The fourth round of US-Iranian talks on curbing violence in Iraq may take place in the next few days, powerful Iraqi Shiite leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim said Tuesday at the end of a US visit.
Hakim, who met with US President George W. Bush last week, said the newly released US intelligence report saying Iran halted its nuclear bomb program in 2003 would help the dialogue between the two foes.
"I suppose that Iraq should host in the coming few days this fourth round of the dialogue. We are seeking to see a constructive dialogue," Hakim said at a news conference.
"We welcome this (US intelligence) report and we think that it is going to contribute in preparing a more positive and proper environment to advance forward in the dialogue between the two countries," he said through an interpreter.

I'm sorry, but for Plan B to have worked, Barbara Bush would have had to take it many years ago.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

How about we just give Shrub and Cheney their Medals of Freedom right now and let them ride out into the sunset?

I think it's time to take a crappy little guy, Michael Ledeen, and throw him against the wall, just to show him he's wrong.

Bolton's logic is astounding ("Iran can decide to "weaponize" its nuclear program at any time, and that the new finding may just mean that Tehran's nuclear weapons program is better hidden.".

Iran says they don't have a bomb and aren't trying to build a bomb. The IAEA says Iran doesn't have a bomb. Sixteen US Intelligence agencies say Iran doesn't have a bomb. Doesn't Occam's Razor lead us to conclude Iran doesn't have a bomb and isn't trying to build a bomb rather than Bolton's twisted conclusion?

You've lost your argument already, by citing TIME as an impartial source; you may not be aware of it (especially if you are a subscriber), because TIME has trying to keep a lid on their recent Joe Klein story about wiretapping, in which he point blank LIES about the new FISA bill.

Here's a link to Glenn Greenwald's coverage:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/04/time/index.html

So, why would we believe a TIME magazine article, when it's just been proven that they are complicit in the Bushco propaganda effort?

It seems that you're a likely poster child for everything that's gone wrong the past few years, given that you are scoffing at the 'official' US intelligence estimate. Apparently, Curveball and the WHIG group get a free pass from you, even though they got the Iraq WMD intelligence WRONG.

And for bonus points, what was Valerie Plame working on when her official CIA cover was blown by the leaking Bush cabinet?

Not likely that a person of your mindset would deal in a reality like *that* is there?

Adding to lally's insights on what Bush knew and when -- Matt Yglesias blogged October 17th about Bush's odd phrase that Iran must be denied knowledge, specifically:

Okay, did some research and reporting into Bush's statement that Iran must be denied not nuclear weapons, but the "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."... I'm told that the crux of the matter is that there's no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. There is, however, a uranium enrichment program that could at some point be used as part of a weapons program. [emphasis mine.]

...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

That's actually not a bad answer. That's how things are ordinarily supposed to work.

The problem with Bush and Cheney is they're usually warmongering and being maximally alarmist.

All I can figure is that:

1) There must be a change of winds, a new pushback from the CIA, threats from Congress, whistleblowers, or something forcing the Admin to come clean on Iran.

2) There's an outside possibility they may have done something right with Iran diplomatically, and are rewarding Iran. Though that's only considered as a courtesy to all possible options, as it would be out of character for them, and there is no evidence to support it.

From Brad Delong

Robert Waldmann shakes his head in disbelief at Peter Baker of the Washington Post: only if you read not just the headline and paragraphs 1-7 of Baker's article but paragraph 8 does he come clean.

The headline:
Rove's Version of 2002 War Vote Is Disputed

Paragraph 1:

a version of events disputed by leading congressional Democrats and even some former Rove colleagues.

Paragraph 2:
Rove said that the administration did not want lawmakers to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq that soon because it would "make things move too fast," before Bush could line up international allies, and politicize the issue ahead of midterm elections. But Democrats and some Republicans involved with the issue at the time said yesterday that Bush wanted a quick vote.

Paragraph 3:
The fresh clash over the five-year-old vote made plain how political leaders on all sides are trying to shape the history of that moment. Former president Bill Clinton this week asserted that he flatly opposed the war from the beginning, a contention challenged by a former White House official who briefed him at the time. Some presidential candidates, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), have portrayed themselves as more skeptical than others recalled.

Paragraph 4:
Speaking on PBS's "Charlie Rose" talk show last week, Rove said Congress pushed to have the vote before the election. "The administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002," Rove said. Asked why, he said: "Because we didn't think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up within a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad."

Paragraph 5:
Democrats accused him of rewriting history. "Either he has a very faulty memory, or he's not telling the truth," said ex-Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). In an interview, Daschle said he asked Bush during a breakfast to delay the vote until after the election. "They told us time was of the essence and they needed the vote and they were going to move forward," he said.

Paragraph 6:
Steve Elmendorf, chief of staff to then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), said it would not benefit Democrats to vote before the elections. "That does not ring true to me," he said of Rove's remarks. "I can't imagine why it would be in our interest to do that."

Paragraph 7:
Rove repeated his assertion in an interview yesterday, pointing to comments made by Democrats in 2002 that they wanted a vote. "For Democrats to suggest they didn't want to vote on it before the election is disingenuous," he said. The vote schedule, he said, was set by lawmakers. "We don't control that."

And finally, paragraph 8:
News accounts and transcripts at the time show Bush arguing against delay. Asked on Sept. 13, 2002, about Democrats who did not want to vote until after the U.N. Security Council acted, Bush said, "If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, 'Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.' "

end of excerpt from Brad De Long.

Not even hard. Any small town editor would have automatically rewritten the lead:
...............................................

Former White House aide Karl Rove said yesterday it was Congress, not President Bush, who wanted to rush a vote on the looming war in Iraq in the fall of 2002,even though this is contradicted by news accounts from the time.
..........................................

That get's the significant facts into the first graf without having to change a single word further down. Of course then he'd have moved the last graf up to nearer the top.

During my long ago exposure to that biz, news stories were written so they could be cut from the bottom up if only for make up considerations .In case you needed to shrink the story without having to rewrite, for example in a later edition or a syndicated one.

Dunno whether that's still true but I suspect that at least some of the outlets which carried the story cut it that way. So Rove's claim was only subject to the automatically discounted dem rebuttal rather than to the conclusive factual
contradiction.

That is true but the IAEA still won't declare that Iran is being clear about their intentions until they become more forthcoming about their past enrichment of uranium.

Can anyone help me out here?

I watched Bush address the NIE and Iran and I have no idea of what he expects of Iran.

What does he want Iran to do?