Weer eens een goeie brief van Youssaf Butt. Naar mijn mening één van de beste
deskundigen op het gebied van non-proliferatie.
Hieronder, in zijn brief aan de redactie van de New York Times, geeft hij een gedegen
analyse waarom de New York Times er gisteren in haar berichtgeving over het
kernenergieprogramma van Iran eens helemaal fout zat. En het vervelende is dat de bullshit
van de New York Times door heel veel 'kwaliteitskranten' wordt overgenomen.
To the Public Editor:
Re. the NYTimes article:
Inspectors Say Iran Is Evading Questions as Nuclear Talks Enter a Crucial Stage
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
ssible-nuclear-work.html
=====
"For example, it said, Iran had avoided answering why it conducted studies of experiments
with conventional explosives. In a bomb, those explosives could be used to create highly
focused shock waves that compress the core of a nuclear device, starting the chain reaction
that leads to a nuclear blast. But there are other uses for such explosives."
=====
The NYTimes is wrong: These are not "studies" but "alleged studies". The information is
unauthenticated. The file was originally called "Alleged Studies" not PMD.
Instead of regurgitating the IAEA's views NYTimes reporters could add value by doing some
cursory investigative reporting including soliciting the opinions of experts. e.g.:
Iran is reported to have invited the IAEA to investigate the IAEA's claims:
http://www.lobelog.com/
The other IAEA claims on this issue seems less than compelling to most knowledgeable
outside technical experts:
http://www.lobelog.com/the-
Yousaf Butt - Pretty in Pink: The Parchin Preoccupation Paradox
http://armscontrollaw.com/
aradox/
NYTimes report:
=====
"The other outstanding question centers on computer modeling studies of how the subatomic
neutrons released in a chain reaction move and multiply."
=====
1. Above refers to paragraph 52 of the 2011 report Annex which is linked to the suspect
leaked AP graphs with incorrect timescale & wrong power/energy correspondence, according
to 2 nuclear physicists published in the Center for Nonproliferation studies blog and at the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
http://wmdjunction.com/130205_
http://thebulletin.org/diy-
2. Computer modeling of anything is allowed under the NPT & IAEA rules anyway.
3. If Iran's answer on this point is to the effect "this is complete rubbish" -- they might well be
correct.
NYTimes:
========
"More than a year later, the report said, Iran has engaged the inspectors on only one topic -
whether its engineers developed detonators that could be used to initiate a nuclear
explosion."
======
Indeed, there are many civilian and conventional military uses for this technology:
http://armscontrollaw.com/
http://atomicreporters.com/
==========================
Why is the IAEA getting confused, and in turn confusing the media, including the New York
Times?
Possibly because nuclear weapons (and ballistic missile payload) investigations lie far
outside its core competency of nuclear materials accountancy as 3 experts have suggested:
Nuclear Verification in Iran | Arms Control Association
http://www.armscontrol.org/
AND:
Why Is the IAEA Getting Iran Wrong?
http://nationalinterest.org/
==============================
How do we fix things? Make an organization that knows about the work it is tasked to try to
do:
Sep. 12: The Iraq Action Team: a model for monitoring and verification of WMD
non-proliferation - www.sipri.org
http://www.sipri.org/media/
AND even the structure of the IAEA could be fixed:
http://books.sipri.org/files/
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten