On "Nuclear Iran" Allegations: Nanodiamonds Ain't Nuclear Bombs
Updated below
The Washington Posts alleges that the IAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability. This is of course, well, a lie. The IAEA has said nothing like that. It is simply an assertion made by the reporter and some "nuclear Iran" scare propagandists based on misinterpreting some factual points in the IAEA "evidence". What that "evidence" says is: Iran is working on nanodiamond production.
(And what would "to threshold of nuclear capability" actually mean? That Iran would be capable, like Japan, Brazil, the Netherlands or some 40 other countries, to build a nuclear bomb if it would choose to do so? What would be new, wrong or dangerous with that?)
The WaPo piece goes into some details, provided mostly by chief nuclear scare monger David Albright, about allegedly "new" stuff some secret services handed to the IAEA. To see how misleading these allegations are lets look at just one detail.
The report describes an Ukrainian expert for creating nanodiamands as "weapon scientist" and "nuclear scientist" even when all his published work is about the synthesizing of very small diamonds, not about nukes. Writes WaPo:
Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said.
...
According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran’s Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country’s nuclear program. Documents provided to the U.N. officials showed that Danilenko offered assistance to the Iranians over at least five years, giving lectures and sharing research papers on developing and testing an explosives package that the Iranians apparently incorporated into their warhead design, according to two officials with access to the IAEA’s confidential files.
Dr. Vyacheslav Danilenko is a well known Ukrainian ("former Soviet") scientist. But his specialties are not "weapon" or "nuclear" science, indeed there seems to be nothing to support that claim, but the production of nanodiamonds via detonations (ppt). According to the history of detonation nanodiamonds he describes in chapter 10 of Ultrananocrystalline Diamond - Synthesis, Properties, and Applications (pdf) he has worked in that field since 1962, invented new methods used in the process and is related with Alit, an Ukrainian company that produces nanodiamonds.
This is a detonation tank to create nanodiamonds, not a nuclear device.
Very small diamonds are useful for many purposes, like polishing optics or PC hard disks. That is why, for example, Drexel University in Philadelphia invited Danilenko for a talk at its Nanotechnology Institute:
On January 29, the AJ Drexel Nanotechnology Institute sponsored a Nanodiamond Lecture, “Nanodiamonds: Reactor Design and Synthesis,” by noted Ukrainian scientist Dr. Vyacheslav Danilenko. Dr. Danilenko was among the first to demonstrate detonation synthesis of diamonds and has more than 30 years experience in the design of reactors for the synthesis of nanodiamonds.
Some years ago Iran launched a big Nano Technology Initiative which includes Iranian research on detonation nanodiamonds (pdf). Iran is officially planing to produce them on industrial scale. It holds regular international conferences and invites experts on nanotechnology from all over the world. It is quite likely that famous international scientists in that field, like Dr. Danilenko, have been invited, gave talks in Iran and cooperate with its scientists.
Producing nanodiamonds via detonations uses large confined containers with water cooling, for which Danilenko seems to have a patent. The Ukrainian company he works with, Alit, shows such a detonation chamber on its webpage as does the picture above from the French-German nano-research company ISL. The detonation nanodiamond explanation thereby also fits with another allegation from the IAEA report:
The Associated Press reported that U.N. officials have acquired satellite photos of a bus-size steel container used by Iran for some of the explosives testing.
See the picture above and the one on the Alit web page. Iran having a "bus-size steel container" for explosive testing and research cooperation with Danilenko both fit very well with Iran's plans for nanodiamond production. They do not fit well with anything nuclear.
In his power-point presentation on detonation nanodiamonds on a industrial scale Danilenko recommends:
Use for industrial production of DND:• charges ≥ 20 kg, explosion under water in close pool (in heavy metal cover), laser initiation;• utilization of old ammunition under water in close pool;
Use of old ammunition in a closed water pool? Does that sound sound like something that "the Iranians apparently incorporated into their warhead design" as WaPo alleges? On what actual facts is that "apparently" innuendo based on? WaPo doesn't say anything about that.
But how or why should the production of detonation nanodiamonds relate to nuclear bombs at all? Why would someone even think they are related?
It may be because both use precisely timed detonations. But they do so on a very different scales and in very different conditions. A spherical implosion device for a nuclear weapon uses precisely timed detonations but it doesn't use a confined container, water cooling and old ammunition. The application is indeed very different. Besides that, there are much easier ways to make a nuclear bomb. And a lot of other physics fields, for example seismological research, also use precisely timed detonations. There is nothing special "nuclear" about them.
Just because a certain method like precise detonations is used in Iran, does not imply that it is used for what Mr. Albright and some "western agencies" claim. Nanodiamonds ain't nuclear weapons.
Danilenko's lifelong expertise is with nanodiamonds, not with nuclear weapons. It is much more plausible and fitting the evidence that Iran is working with him in his original capacity than in a field outside his main expertise.
If this is the general quality of the "new evidence" on Iran then it is quite worthless. This seems to be just more innuendo and dirt thrown towards Iran with the hope that something, anything might stick.
UPDATE Nov 8, 0:20 am EST
The Guardian is just now the first mainstream media to mention the nanodiamond part of the story:
Vyacheslav Danilenko, a Russian former atomic scientist, was alleged in the Washington Post to have provided advice on explosives to Iranian scientists which was incorporated into Tehran's design for a nuclear warhead.Sources close to the IAEA confirmed he was the "foreign expert" referred to in its past reports on Iranian weaponisation.
It said he had given lectures over a number of years to Iranian specialists on how to rig simultaneous explosions: mastering such explosive force is critical in building an implosion-type nuclear device, in which high explosives compress highly enriched uranium or plutonium until it reaches critical mass, triggering a chain reaction. However, in interviews with the IAEA, Danilenko is said to have insisted that he had been under the impression his advice would be used for purely civilian applications of explosive technology, sources close to the agency said.
Although he did not specify what those applications were, he now works for a company called Nanogroup, based in the Czech Republic, which specialises in the use of explosives to make tiny diamonds for industrial purposes. On its website the company describes itself as "the first industrial manufacturer of nanodiamonds in the world market".
UPDATE 2 - Nov 9
The above was written before the IAEA report was published. Having read the now published report I find that The IAEA Confirms My Nanodiamond Analysis.
Posted by b on November 7, 2011 at 10:02 UTC | Permalink
Just found a book "Ultrananocrystalline Diamond, Synthesis, Properties, and Applications" with Chapter 10 "On the Discovery of Detonation Nanodiamond" William Andrew Publishing, 2006 written by Danilenko himself. It seems he has worked in that field since 1962.
MB
If you start from the assumption that the end-result of all this is some sort of military action, then that would be a reasonable query; however, this is not the game that's being played - the "red-line" for the Israelis is any form of US-Iranian rapprochement or normalisation ( a position that is now shared by the Saudis ). Given that there is no mileage in domestic US politics for this at present, it has been relatively straightforward for the Israelis to work this on both sides of the aisle - the Democrats are still pissed over Carter, and the Republicans are still pissed over the trashing of St. Ronnie, when Iran-Contra nearly wiped out a large slice of their FP-Mil-Security cabal. However, no one can rule out the possibility of a "Nixon goes to China" moment coming out of left field, hence the constant reinforcement of the current status quo along with the ever-creeping scope of US sanctions legislation, that effectively freezes the US in a position of permanent rupture. How this breaks down is the key question - arguably, it's possible that a political opening will come in 2013 with the election of a new Iranian president, assuming that Obama is re-elected and can act without having to worry about re-election; the key thing to watch for in this scenario is Clinton leaving the State Department.
On a mundane note - attacking Iran is not a simple proposition that can be accomplished q-like with a wave of a hand resulting in bombers materialising over targets deep inside Iran, it is a fiendishly complicated endeavour, requiring a number of hihgly-vulnerable third-party allies, with unpredictable and unknowable consequences along a mulitplicity of vectors. This was well-articulated by a variety of senior US military figures ( Renuart, Pace, Fallon and others ) during the Bush administration second-term, who all comprehensively stomped on the idea that there could be a military "solution" to Iran. The US position has considerably worsened since then insofar as Iran has locked in Iraq, oil prices are even higher, Egypt is now a wild-card, Pakistan is objectively the most pressing clusterfuck that needs dealing with, and the US is war-weary and sufficiently broke that it cannot afford to fight a war against a G-20 sized economy that can credibly defend itself.
Posted by: dan | Nov 7 2011 15:59 utc | 3
@3, I realize all of that, but I'm not the one to be convinced, and apparently, neither are you. So, who is? If nobody, what's the point of the discussion?
What b has proven is that these imposters calling themselves "journalists" have stretched the truth, or given audience to those who are stretching the truth, or fabricating falsities, without grilling that source, or those sources, on the details and ironing out inconsistencies prior to going to press.
That's what we should do for them since they are so neglectful. This is a great start by b, and a great catch, but unless you fry the catch, you're no better than them at their game.
So, once again, has anyone reached heir Doctor for comment about this story, and exactly what his relationship with Iran was, if he had any relationship?
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 7 2011 16:11 utc | 4
MB
Fair point.
Obviously, in this instance, the catch would be the Washington Post - and whilst I would be surprised if they or their correspondent ever admitted to making an error, it's certainly worth contacting them to point out that Joby Warrick is an incompetent journalist who hasn't done his homework, and needs to take a remedial class in google.
Posted by: dan | Nov 7 2011 16:36 utc | 5
Dan, I just read your post in its entirety, and now realize that @4 doesn't address what you posted, but @4 is still valid, in its own right.
Regarding what you said, yes, of course, the details are tedious and quite cumbersome and complex, but the overall general strategy, or strategies, are not all that complex. As many here have mentioned, War Plans are drawn up for anything you or I could ever imagine, and then more that we have not yet imagined, or would ever imagine. 99% of those plans will never be implemented, because the triggers for such plans will never manifest, but 1% of them will, and that's what we're concerned with here. So, yes, an attack on Iran may have 50 possible plans, depending on what triggers have been activated, keeping in mind that some of these triggers are self-imposed by strategists themselves through false flag ops.
Aside from that, how can we know whether, or not, Iran will be attacked? You have to look at the trajectory, and then determine if it's possible anything can halt the formidable trajectory. The trajectory indicates that Iran will cease to be as it is today in the not too distant future. Can something halt that? Yeah, if that asteroid that's expected to pass between the earth and the moon hits the earth, or the moon, that may stop the trajectory, but aside from that, the odds are slim.
Claudio said something very profound, and I had given it some thought prior to him mentioning it on another thread, so it both validated some of my thinking and resonated with me. Sadly, because the discussion had moved on to other threads, his comment was largely overlooked since, it appears, most everyone had moved on.
He said this:
I am very worried; if they keep invoking war on Iran, sooner or later we'll have war on Iran, even they didn't really intend to; there's an inexorable and uncontrollable logic in the ideological and propagandistic processes, once set in motion; only open and radical opposition to the "war on terrorism", the "islamic threat" and the "Israel right to security" paradigms can defuse such processes, in the case of Iran; instead, the Us plays along strengthening the aggressive rhetoricput in another way: we set up a scapegoat, and sooner or later will come the opportunity or the necessity to sacrifice him
It's an excellent point from claudio.
Oh, and one other thing, the actors (Presidents, Secretaries of State and Defense, etc.) can come and go, but this Imperialistic Campaign to turn the world into a Corporatized Contemporary Plantation with flat screen televisions and i-phones marches on in indifference to these two-bit actors who do its bidding.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 7 2011 16:40 utc | 6
Nice work.
Here is the view of an actual nuclear physicist on Iran's nuclear program -- it includes quotes by our DNI and the ex-DG of the IAEA:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH16Ak03.html
Posted by: Clint Sharpe | Nov 7 2011 16:52 utc | 7
As I've written, the trajectory with respect to Iran is clear. There has been a deliberate policy of eliminating possible peaceful resolutions, and boxing US policymakers into a corner. Everyone says that sanctions imposed on Iran have "failed" because they have not altered their nuclear program. So why do we continue with more sanctions? Because the sanctions serve as stepping-stones towards war. And, more importantly, with every new set of sanctions, it becomes politically more difficult for any American president to do an about-turn on Iran. In fact as Yousef Butts has noted, the sanctions cannot be removed on Iran even if Iran gives up her nuclear program entirely. This is a deliberate policy, not something that's just happening on its own.
Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 7 2011 16:54 utc | 8
PS great catch about the "denotation tanks" that ALbright is shilling.
Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 7 2011 16:56 utc | 9
I agree with Cyrus on this. The endgame is regime change by whatever means and to neoliberize Iran just like Iran.
@10, you mean neoliberalize Iran just like Iraq. Although, I'm not sure I would call Iraq neoliberalized. It's some form of Frankensteinish hybrid, at this point.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 7 2011 17:08 utc | 11
Julian Borger, the "diplomatic correspondent" of the Guardian, is peddling the same story about Danilenko today.
Interestingly he states that he was given Danilenko's name in 2009, on condition that he not use it, and that the IAEA was investigating Danilenko's alleged role in 2009. Obviously they didn't try very hard. He also states that he attempted to contact Danilenko at the time, but was "unable to track him down". This is remarkable as Danilenko's email address and other contact details are easily found on the web, as in the book that b links to.
This is serious for Dr Danilenko - other scientists who have been falsely linked to Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme have been murdered. He may be able to bring a case for libel against the Guardian, or at least to use the threat of it to demand an apology.
Posted by: pmr9 | Nov 7 2011 19:11 utc | 12
@pmr9 - Julian Borger is the David Sanger at the Guardian. In Germany it is Erick Follath at the SPIEGEL.
Danilenko also appears, though not with full name, in this SPIEGEL piece from 2010 written by Erich Follath, well known for his connections with Mossad (he wrote a book about it). A LOT of innuendo in there, like "Iran doesn't need sparkling gems" nonsense:
Vyacheslav D. is an internationally recognized specialist in the field of nanotechnology. His good reputation is based on a discovery he and his fellow Soviet scientists made in July 1963. When they exposed carbon to the shock waves from an explosion, the abrupt compression turned the carbon into gems called nanodiamonds. The Iranians have no need for sparkling gems, but they are interested in all things related to detonating a bomb -- which is where the Russian comes in. During the Cold War, D. spent years working on the Soviets' nuclear weapons program. Chelyabinsk-70 in Siberia, 1,500 kilometers due east of Moscow, is the Soviet version of Los Alamos. The Russians have been building nuclear bombs there since 1955, and now their scientists are experimenting with ways to make them smaller. D. works in the scientific research institute at Chelyabinsk.The only connection Follath makes is to Chelyabinsk. Well, lots of people worked there, on lots on stuff, not only nukes.The Iranians take notice of D. in 1992, when he and his colleagues publish a groundbreaking essay in a professional journal. In the article, they discuss the challenge of making the shock waves expand as uniformly as possible after an explosion, an important factor in the detonation of a certain type of nuclear warhead. To this end, many small channels have to be cut into the warhead "so as to be able to measure the intervals at which the waves arrive," D. writes. According to IAEA sources, a deal is struck around 1995. From then on, the Russian scientist will work for Tehran. Whether he is fully aware of the real goal of the project is unclear.
But the piece shows that there is nothing "new" to this. It is all warmed up stuff that has been rejected years ago.
@12, I'd hate to be this guy right about now, although he appears to be more useful alive than dead....for now, at least.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 7 2011 20:09 utc | 14
Although, I'm not sure I would call Iraq neoliberalized. It's some form of Frankensteinish hybrid, at this point.
Having just returned from Iraqi Kurdistan, I can tell you that Iraq doesn't correspond in any way to a model of neo-liberalism or its opposite. The Iraqis are going back to the model of Saddam, as though nothing had ever happened.
More detailed report when I've recovered.
Posted by: Alexno | Nov 7 2011 21:02 utc | 15
"he appears to be more useful alive than dead....for now, at least"
I hope you're right but it seems like they can kill him and then pin it on Iran.
Posted by: lysander | Nov 7 2011 21:29 utc | 16
What's funny is all this "evidence" is still old stuff from old IAEA reports with little extra bits now. Nothing new.
Posted by: Clint Sharpe | Nov 7 2011 23:36 utc | 17
Do tell, Alexno. I'm sure Bernhard will give you some space if you care to write a full post ...
Posted by: jonku | Nov 8 2011 1:16 utc | 18
Yeah, I would like to hear about your travels in Kurdistan, Alexno. However, as we know, Kurdistan is distinct from other parts of Iraq. The last time I got a look at Kurdistan was through the rose-colored glasses of Anthony Bourdain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5RFtY6fbvU
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 8 2011 1:33 utc | 19
b,
I have no idea who the hell you are, but I sure am glad you've decided to take up blogging again.
Posted by: masoud | Nov 8 2011 3:22 utc | 20
Anyone wanting to bet that Julian Borger at the Guardian has read my piece before writing his (which, according to Google, was published 5 hours ago):
Iran nuclear report: IAEA claims Tehran working on advanced warhead (again the headline is misleading)
The IAEA report will say the Iranian studies on weaponisation have been downgraded since 2004 from building and testing components to mostly computer modelling."This will not be a smoking gun," said Olli Heinonen, formerly the IAEA's chief inspector now at Harvard University. "But there are areas of concern, and much of it is alarming."
...
Previous IAEA reports have said Iran appears to have received foreign assistance in its experiments with advanced explosive devices, and the Washington Post named Vyacheslav Danilenko, a Russian former atomic scientist, as a key advisor, who is said to have given lectures and contributed papers on explosives at Iran's now defunct Physics Research Centre, which had ties to the country's nuclear programme.Danilenko did not reply to emails seeking comment, but sources close to the IAEA said he told its inspectors that he believed his advice was being used for civilian purposes. He is now carrying out research for a Czech-based company which uses explosives to make tiny diamonds for industrial uses.
Press reports from Vienna, where the IAEA is based, said Wednesday's report will also give details of the agency's suspicions that a steel bus-sized chamber spotted in satellite photos at a military complex at Parchin, 18 miles south-east of Tehran, has been used for testing explosive components for a nuclear weapon.
...
Vyacheslav Danilenko, a Russian former atomic scientist, was alleged in the Washington Post to have provided advice on explosives to Iranian scientists which was incorporated into Tehran's design for a nuclear warhead.Sources close to the IAEA confirmed he was the "foreign expert" referred to in its past reports on Iranian weaponisation.
It said he had given lectures over a number of years to Iranian specialists on how to rig simultaneous explosions: mastering such explosive force is critical in building an implosion-type nuclear device, in which high explosives compress highly enriched uranium or plutonium until it reaches critical mass, triggering a chain reaction. However, in interviews with the IAEA, Danilenko is said to have insisted that he had been under the impression his advice would be used for purely civilian applications of explosive technology, sources close to the agency said.
Although he did not specify what those applications were, he now works for a company called Nanogroup, based in the Czech Republic, which specialises in the use of explosives to make tiny diamonds for industrial purposes. On its website the company describes itself as "the first industrial manufacturer of nanodiamonds in the world market".
Danilenko, who is said to be writing a theoretical textbook on high explosives, did not respond to requests for comment.
This is the same Julien Borger who "discovered" an article on an Iranian Revolutionary Guards website that touted the "day after" a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel wich he claimed was part of an Iranian "trial balloon" but later it turned out that nothing in this story was, you know, actually true.
Posted by: hass | Nov 8 2011 5:15 utc | 22
Compared to his previous piece (which was mostly echoing the Wapo article), Borger iss already walking back his claims, or spinning them to sound less ‘absolute’ or ‘new’.
I wonder what will happen this time around if it turns out that the IAEA report actually doesn't say all what is implied in those articles (remember what happened when Obama went for a big show about a secret plant under construction, only to learn then that Iran had reported it a few days before to the IAEA according to their obligations ? – right, they started a new attempt at negotiations)
Posted by: Philippe | Nov 8 2011 5:29 utc | 23
Danilenko, who is said to be writing a theoretical textbook on high explosives, did not respond to requests for comment.
Anyone have an e-mail on him? One of us can write him an e-mail on behalf of MOA and invite him to respond here. This way, his comments will not be censored, edited and taken out of context. His failure to comment may very well have something to do with that.
Also, did anyone else notice the highly subtle and nuanced innuendo in the following comment from Borger:
Although he did not specify what those applications were, he now works for a company called Nanogroup, based in the Czech Republic, which specialises in the use of explosives to make tiny diamonds for industrial purposes. On its website the company describes itself as "the first industrial manufacturer of nanodiamonds in the world market".
Very skilled deceit. It's not blatant, and that's the genius of it. To the unwitting reader, the implication will permeate their minimal sentience, and the goal will be accomplished......that goal being that this man is guilty even if he wasn't charged. The tone and the framing of it. Using quotes the way he did marginalizes and makes suspect the official description of the company. How do I know this....well, because I use the quote function in that manner all the time, although in the context I use it, it's a bit more obvious that my intent is to point out the illegitimacy of the term or claim. It's Yellow Cake journalism at its best. To us, it's rather transparent, cheap and shoddy, but we're not the audience. When you consider the audience, it's pure duplicitous genius.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 8 2011 11:51 utc | 24
I sent a comment with this MoA link yesterday and today on an article published in the german newspaper FAZ (www.faz.net): "IAEA has proof of Iran questing a nuclear arsenal", Andreas Ross, the author, including all the blatant lies from WaPo et.al. and pretending that this is all "own informations and own sources". The editors wrote back to me that they will not publish the comments because of me using a link they cannot control. Still fighting with them whether they have at least read the MoA article and will correct their informations on the "soviet nuclear expert".
Posted by: thomas | Nov 8 2011 15:50 utc | 25
@Thomas - just pass a short excerpt of my piece in the FAZ comments and say "link can be found by putting quote into google" - has worked for me before
Anyone wanting to bet that Julian Borger at the Guardian has read my piece before writing
i bet he did ;)
you're so awesome b
Posted by: annie | Nov 8 2011 21:31 utc | 27
The overweight douchebag Jeffrey Lewis banned me from his tendentious pro-US/Israel/IAEA anti-Iran website (www.armscontrolwonk.com) because I underlined what one of the foremost authorities on the IAEA stated:
The Hasaka incident elucidates an important issue: states may not allow IAEA inspectors into certain sites, not because they have anything to hide but because the IAEA has no legal basis for such prying.
Just because you deny the police to enter your home does not mean you are hiding some child porn. You just don’t want the damn police there and they have no legal basis to enter your home.
Our friend Pierre Goldschmidt agrees — See:
“…the Department of Safeguards doesn’t have the legal authority it needs to fulfill its mandate and to provide the assurances the international community is expecting from its verification activities. ”
Well, that’s really too bad but this was done by design.
The third world diplomats who hashed out the NPT and CSAs made sure their national sovereignty would not be sacrificed to the IAEA/UNSC/NWSs.
In the end, this seems to have been sensible from their perspective: the IAEA is not helping 3rd world nations with their nuclear programs, it is not preventing disasters in first world nations, and it is not pressuring the first world nations (NWSs) to disarm at an “early date”.
Posted by: Anon | Nov 9 2011 0:35 utc | 28
@Jack .... wtf has any of what you are "peddling" got to do with the topic?
Posted by: David A. | Nov 12 2011 18:03 utc | 31
The comments to this entry are closed.
Has the Dr. been reached for comment? I agree that he is not what the propagandists say he is, but what was his relationship with Iran, if there was one at all, and is there any further information to corroborate any counter claims?
Still, I'm a bit confused. Some here have said that the U.S., and by virtue of that, Israel, really need no convoluted excuse to attack Iran, yet you say here that "this is just more innuendo and dirt thrown at Iran with the hope that some might stick." If no excuse is needed, then why do "they" bother with such Yellow Cake journalism?
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 7 2011 14:07 utc | 1