Of course it can.
Russia can be trusted to do the right thing for Russia just like any other country can be.

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/3...dvedevoffi.jpg

Dmitry Medvedev Current President of Russia.

Indeed, Dmitry Medvedev,
 

but if it really needed more "balls", to have the former KGB officer Vladimir Putin more of a say ..

Are you honestly saying Russia would do something as stupid as say giving Iran a few of the used fuel rods?

Medvedev is President. Putin is Prime Minister, having been given that position due to term limits on the presidency.

Anyone who believes that Putin isn't in charge in Russia is decieving themselves.

According to what I read, Iran already has enough material to build 2 nuclear devices, but to build them, they would have to take certain unmistakable steps, like kicking out the inspectors, which would alert everyone to what they are doing.

Let's not forget that most governements in Europe, America and even the middle east do not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq upset the balance of power by taking out a Sunni regime and replacing it by a Shiite government. This allowed Iran to extend it's influence into Iraq. This worries the other regimes in the region, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia which have a Sunni majority.

Saudi Arabia is especially worried because it has a restless Shiite minority in its eastern provinces. Saudi Arabia, since 1948, was one of the most hard line states in its opposition to Israel. Yet, over the past few years, they have held direct but discreet talks with the Israeli governemnt and recently gave the IAF permission to overfly their territory, presumably if it becomes necessary for Israel to attack Iran. The Saudis now realize that Iran is a greater threat than Israel, which is wonderfully ironic. :DL

As usual, the ROW is quite willing to let Israel do the dirty work when it suits their national interest. Just compare the muted response of all governments, including Arab states in the region, when Israel attacked the Syrian reactor in 2007 to the outrage over the botched flotilla raid earlier this year.

By the way the centrifuges in those facilities are arranged, they can not make weapons grade uranium.

"Weapons Grade" is a misnomer, Any Uranium can be used to build a bomb, it just requires a lot more U-235 to do it. At 20% enrichment it would need about 400 kg of U-235 to achieve critical mass.

True that, but it is pretty difficult to weaponize low enriched uranium, due to the bulk and weight. Makes delivery a lot more difficult

Would you put it past Iran?

I wouldn't.

I think where Iran is concerned it would be wise to expect the unexpected

I think they do not have "Balls" enough,
 

to think so..:yep:

Not completely accurate.

You are correct, however, in stating that increasing the amount of 235U decreases the critical mass. But the critical mass of Uranium is the minimum density/configuration needed to sustain criticality, not achieve and maintain supercriticality.

Any concentration of 235U can achieve criticality depending on many factors (temperature, shape, reflectors), however, to build a "bomb", the material has to achieve a state of supercriticality.

Criticality is achieved when there is no increase or decrease in power, temperature, or neutron production. The number of neutrons produced is equal to the number of neutrons lost.

Supercriticality is achieved when there is an increase in power, temperature, and neutron production. The number of neutrons produced is greater than the number of neutrons lost.

Under achievable environments, it is incorrect to say that any concentration of Uranium can be made to achieve supercriticality.

Suppose I should have elaborated but Aramike said it so Ill save it mostly.Putin is really in charge of Russia and you are naive if you believe otherwise.

Like many mid-asian nations whose background is Muslim, much of what they say is, for lack of a better word, are exageration.

That being said, it doesn't mean we should reguard the rhetoric as empty.

At some point classic diplomacy can fail and military action must be employed to protect a nation. Since very few mid-asian nations have denounced the actions, the option should be on the table.

I think the bottom line is that this thread is filled with assumptions and suppositions which make little sense. I remember in my early time here I posited portions of a paper I was writing which predicted North Korea would attain nuclear weapons. It was commented that somehow I was nuts for thinking that.

Now North Korea has nukes. Go figure.

Let's start from A, shall we? Should Iran be allowed nuclear power plants? Despite the limited, albeit very real, danger in "granting" this technology, in this the Russians got one right. How do you restrict atomic power? Quite frankly, their position on this was ingenious - which nation will attack Iran for building a friggin' power plant? So why not position themselves to profit from the construction of said plants?

Now onto B, it has been suggested here that it would be difficult, if not impossible for Iran to secretly weaponize Plutonium. Anyone who know's anything whatsoever about intelligence would understand the folly of that reasoning. Hiding just about anything within a sovereign nation's borders is fairly easily accomplished, all the moreso when said nation doesn't even begin to prescribe to personal freedoms.

My fear is that, unlike North Korea, Iran will not openly flaunt its nuclear weapons capability. Whether or not they are able to complete a true, multi-stage thermonuclear weapon or simply multiple "Fat Man" type bombs is academic when considering their true theological objective, which is Israel.

Ultimately, my point is this: let them have nuclear energy. Really - even if you disagree with it, who has the political will to prevent it? However, understand that nuclear weapons MAY not be far behind, and be prepared to take extraordinary measures should our intelligence sources indicate Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions coming to fruition.

And finally, my largest fear: we will be "Bushed-out" afraid if said intelligence indicates that Iran has nuclear weapons. Meaning, we will be so afraid that the intelligence is flawed that we won't act, ignoring the absolute imperative the stakes are in this game. Quite frankly, it's better to be wrong and act than to be right and be afraid to act.

If Iran insists on becoming nuclear, THEY assume that risk.

I am going to have to agree with that. Medvedev is no mere figurehead, but Putin does indeed hold considerable sway and he is very popular in Russia.

Israel is probably watching all this very closely and its no secret that they have one of the worlds best spy networks. I think that when the time comes they will act swiftly and i doubt we will know anything about it until the bombs start falling. I really doubt they would announce their plans until it was too late for anyone to stop them.

The big question is how far will they go? Would they use Nukes to prevent Iran from obtaining them? If so then that could very well start WWIII because i'm sure Russia and China would react with there own nuclear weapons and once that happened who knows where it would lead?

Why would Russia and China go nuclear on this? They have nothing to gain from it. This isn't the cold war anymore after all.:hmmm:

Exactly, Russia and China would have keen interest in not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, both Russia and China have problems with Islamic Extremists who might receive nuclear weapons from Iran.

In fact Russia has already had two dirty bomb attempts by Chechen terrorists. I would not what to see what the Chechens would do with fissile material.