Iran's nuclear program

zalzon wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:51:28 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

zalzon wrote in message news:
The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being
built at any frantic pace within Russia itself.

Nonsense. The VVER reactors that the Russians are building in Iran are
also used - quite successfully - in Finland

What relation does the statement you wrote have with the above?
Is Finland in Russia?


Point being that Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr is a "standard"
reactor unlike what you implied.




Osirak was for n-weapons - that much we do know.

Probably, but bombing it didn't solve the problem of nuclear
proliferation at all

Sure it did. Eyerack is not a nuclear state.

Logical fallacy A precedent event is not necessary the cause of a
subsequent event. The reason why Iraq is not a nuclear states is not
because of Israel's attack. Its because of a whole host of other
factors such as UN sanctions.




But Having "intent" is not contrary to the NPT.

Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the NPT.


Sorry, that's not correct. The NPT prohibits the acquisition of
nuclear weapons. That's all.

The NPT is a document which allows for the transfer of nuclear technology
to non-nuclear countries with the agreement of those countries not to
pursue a n-weapons program.

That's right. The NPT prohibits the production or acquisition (what
you loosely call the "pursuit") of nuclear weapons. However there's
nothing in the NPT which prohibits the "intent" to potentially acquire
nuclear weapons in the future. In fact the NPT explicitly allows for
this contingency through Article X, which permits signatory nations to
withdraw from the Treaty.


I belive you are just beating around the bush. You don't yourself believe
that Eyeran's pursuit of nuclear generated electricity is genuine so you
seek to put a smoke screen around the issue. A point blank yes/no
question draws a paragraph of misdirection.


I believe (without any basis or empirical evidence) that Iran does
indeed seek to acquire civilian nuclear technology, knowing that if it
ever had to, it could exercise its rights under Art. X of the NPT to
withdraw from the treaty and defend itself.


In fact the NPT OBLIGATES nations to share ALL nuclear
technology EVEN data obtained from nuclear test explosions.

Could you cite me the clause for that? Sounds like BS to me.

Article V
Each party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to
ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate
international observation and through appropriate international
procedures,
***potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear
explosions**** will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States
Party to the Treaty on a nondiscriminatory basis and that the charge
to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as
possible and exclude any charge for research and development....



Further more Article X of the treaty
specifically permits nations to withdraw from the NPT - that's a
recognition that a nation may need to build nukes to protect itself at
some time.

You mean sign the treaty, get nuclear technology, put up a smoke screen,
then withdraw and build the bomb? May I ask why is it OK for Eyeran to
enter the treaty with the intention of withdrawing while other countries
should adhere to the spirit of the treaty?

The suggestion that Iran entered the treaty "with the intention" of
withdrawing is your conclusion. Iran is a charter member of the NPT,
and it has the same rights and responsibilities as any other
signatory. All of the other nations have the same options as does
Iran. Article X applies to all of them.

Look, I am sorry that the NPT doesn't say "The US shall have the right
to possess nuclear technology and weapons to threaten everyone else,
but not Iran." But don't blame me.


Its like handing money over to a crook who swears up and down that he
won't cheat you, only to find his "intent" is just that.

I have to wonder why all this cynicism about iran's intentions aren't
similiarly applied to the US's intentions. Don't forget, the US is a
signatory too, and the NPT places certain obligations on the USA too,
which the US has blatantly ignored - not just "intented" to ignore.