If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Iran's nuclear program
"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message ...
"...Proof: UN clears Iran nuclear facility...." Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein while closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during the 1990s? Oh, so the starving of IRaqi children was the UNs' fault and not the fault of the USA?? LOL!!! Talk about scapegoating! FYI, remember what Madame Albright had to say about it: Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96) Is that the same UN that has it's blue beret troops watch while black Africans slaughter other black Africans? It couldn't be that UN could it? WDA end -- ---------------------------------------------------- This mailbox protected from junk email by MailFrontier Desktop from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com "Thelasian" wrote in message m... Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned: 1- The Bushehr reactor-which was started under the Shah with US support-is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a ligh****er reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits that much. Proof: UN clears Iran nuclear facility The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of concern. (SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004) 2- According to Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an "INALIENABLE RIGHT" to possess nuclear technology. Several other nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and Japan. Note how the articles conflate a nuclear "weapons" program with a "nuclear program" 3- Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive oil and gas because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on the sale oil and gas for earning hard currency. In fact the Stanford Research Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest hydroengery dam. 4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the legitimate technology to build a weapon of it desires to do so. Needless to say, ANY TECHNOLOGY "could" be used to make nukes, and so could any country. Proof: "IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found "no evidence" Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons... SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003 " 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no smoking gun.' " SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28 5- The bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor did not signficantly affect Iraq's nuclear program, since the centrifuge sites were not bombed. If anything it encouraged them to speed up the process. But in any case, Iran has signed the Additional Protocol which permits IAEA inspections anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had not. 6- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a deterrence. 7- Currently, Iran has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear installations are all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North Korea. 8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed - and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6 mos, the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads 9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full support of the people of the government too, so changing governments will not change the decision to build nukes. 10- There are already many Iranians who believe that Iran should withdraw from the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has failed to abide by ITS obligations under the same treaty, and Iran is surrounded by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten Iran's security. So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb Iran and see what happens. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:30:46 -0700, W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein while closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during the 1990s? Truth be known, the US facilitated/manipulated the UN into that with sanctions on evertying. When it became clear that the Saddam regime was not going to collapse as a result of sanctions, the bogus WMD issue came along. The rest as they say is history. Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive oil and gas I doubt the above statement is true. While countries do diversify their energy sources, it makes little economic sense for an oil & gas abundant nation to invest in expensive nuclear energy production. Nuclear energy production makes the best economic sense for countries with few fossil fuel reserves and little hydroelectric potential. e.g. US, France, Germany, Japan, India, China. They make no sense for countries like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venesuela... even Russia to a great extent if climatic factors are excluded. The implications become more obvious when seen against the backdrop of Iran's plans to master the nuclear fuel cycle from mining the ore to its reprocessing. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thelasian wrote:
Stop SPAM wrote in message ... Thelasian wrote: Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned ...snipped... How about these new facts - sounds awfully suspiciously like Iran is working on becoming a nuclear power, and doesn't care who - including "Old Europe" - knows, or what UN sanctions it receives. Where have we heard this before? Actually, these are not "new facts" at all. And Iran is indeed working on becoming a "nuclear power" - a civilian nuclear power. That's what the NPT says is an "inalienable right" of countries to do. Oh, and these facts are coming from "Old Europe", not the US. Are you now accusing 'Old Europe' of "smoke-and mirror and fear-mongering"? Gee, it's beginning to sound like there's multilateral support against Iran. Again/ I am not sure what new facts you're referring to. According to the article, Iran has demanded that Europeans provide Iran with nuclear technology and stop impediments to Iran's acquisition of same. That's exactly what the NPT requires of the signatory nations. Thelasian - I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things: The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that the three European powers: - Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications. - "Remove impediments" — sales restrictions imposed by nuclear supplier nations — preventing Iran access to such technology. If the peace-loving people of Iran are only interested in civilian nuclear power, they would not be asking for dual use technologies, nor would the rest of the world (starting with France and Germany) be concerned: But diplomats said Iran's demands undermine the effort by France, Germany and Britain to avoid a confrontation. They had hoped to persuade Tehran to give up technology that can produce nuclear arms, but now are closer to the Bush administration's view that Iran should be referred to the U.N. Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the diplomats said. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Willing to bet your life on it? Iran has a highly irresponsible government
with great potential for misusing nuclear weapons if they were to obtain them. Given their large natural Right,Unlike US,which has a highly responsible government that considers using nuclear weapons only aganist non-nuclear powers,iresponsible Iranians might consider using them aganist other nuclear powers. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Hix" wrote in message ... In article , (Thelasian) wrote: Steve Hix wrote in message ... In article , (Thelasian) wrote: "W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message ... "...Proof: UN clears Iran nuclear facility...." Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein while closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during the 1990s? Oh, so the starving of IRaqi children was the UNs' fault and not the fault of the USA?? False dilemma. Blame the responsible party; Saddam Hussein and his cronies. Anything but to blame the USA right? Who backed and supported Saddam? Do your homework. (It's really easy; after all, you have a computer at hand.) - Russia, first and foremost, gauged by their sales of tanks, aircraft, artillery, smallarms, and ammunition for all of the above. (Unless you can show that MiG, Sukhoi, Mil, and Kamov are American companies...) - To a lesser degree, France, with some Dassault fighterbombers and some army kit. France worked on their telecomm systems, too. Don't forget that Iraq's nuclear facilities (promptly destroyed by Israel), were built by France. In fact, Jaques Chirac personally hosted Saddam in France, brokered the deal himself, then toured the facilites with Saddam when they were completed. If you ask me, Israel picked the wrong day to bomb. Down in the noise level: Germany, U.S., Britain, and a few other countries sold them gear up through the mid-80s. Take a look at the composition of the Iraqi military forces up until Desert Storm. No, Saddam & Cie. are fully to blame for diverting billions of dollars in funds specifically meant for food and medical material for Iraqi people to building more and more palaces for himself and his pals. Some people, including U.N. personnel benefitted from his largesse at the same time. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Thelasian wrote:
Stop SPAM wrote in message ... Thelasian - I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things: The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that the three European powers: - Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications. YEs, and since all nuclear technology is inherently dual use, all that means is that Iran insist on its RIGHT to receive all the technology and not just the ones that the EU3 thinks is safe enough to give away. Thelasian - I suggest you learn a bit more about nuclear technology before you embarrass yourself further. All nuclear technology is not "inherently" dual use. There are many nuclear reactor designs that cannot be used for weapons use; reactors that run on low grade fuel come to mind. Both the USSR and the US export such designs and equipment to countries truly looking for peaceful uses of nuclear power. Without reprocessing or extraction plants (which do utilize dual use technology) such a low grade reactor is not dual use, and with an outside country swapping fuel loads as needed there is no need for any in-country dual use technology. So why is Iran insisting it needs dual use nuclear technology when, if all it wants is peaceful nukes, it could go with non-dual use technology? Go back, read something reasonable about nuclear technology, and then come back and post. Until then, quit posting factually wildly incorrect statements such as "all nuclear technology is inherently dual use". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Denyav" wrote in message
... Willing to bet your life on it? Iran has a highly irresponsible government with great potential for misusing nuclear weapons if they were to obtain them. Given their large natural Right,Unlike US,which has a highly responsible government that considers using nuclear weapons only aganist non-nuclear powers,iresponsible Iranians might consider using them aganist other nuclear powers. I pity anyone who tries to pretend there is some equivalence between the governments of Iran and the United States. If you start really believe that, you are so far behind the curve as to make meaningful discussion impossible. Jarg |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Denyav" wrote in message ... I pity anyone who tries to pretend there is some equivalence between the governments of Iran and the United States. If you start really believe that, you are so far behind the curve as to make meaningful discussion Thats the real politics,the countries without nuclear weapons get occupied and colonized,but the ones with nuclear weapons,even if they have only a couple of of them,treated with soft gloves. Right up until they use one. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stop SPAM wrote in message ...
Thelasian wrote: Stop SPAM wrote in message ... Thelasian - I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things: The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that the three European powers: - Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications. YEs, and since all nuclear technology is inherently dual use, all that means is that Iran insist on its RIGHT to receive all the technology and not just the ones that the EU3 thinks is safe enough to give away. Thelasian - I suggest you learn a bit more about nuclear technology before you embarrass yourself further. Don't presume so much. All nuclear technology is not "inherently" dual use. There are many nuclear reactor designs that cannot be used for weapons use; This is true. However, if someone is hellbent on characterizing something as "could be used to make nukes" then ANY technology is 'dual use' Someone could say with a straight face that my pocket calcular "could be used to make nuclear weapons" - and they'd be right. So even proliferation-proof reactors can be maligned this way - they could argue that the fuel for the reactors "could be used to make a dirty nuke". That's the problem with the US accusations against Iran - we are told that Iran's civilian ligh****er reactor "Could be used to make nukes" and so could the uranium enrichment facilities. Sure, it "could" but so could my pocket calculator. Anyway do you see anyone sharing the proliferation proof technology with Iran? Nope. So what's Iran supposed to do? that run on low grade fuel come to mind. Actually, Iran's ligh****er reactor does indeed run on low-grade fuel. However, according to several sources, even that lowgrade fuel "could be" used to make nuclear weapons . . . Both the USSR and the US export such designs and equipment to countries truly looking for peaceful uses of nuclear power. Without reprocessing or extraction plants (which do utilize dual use technology) such a low grade reactor is not dual use, So you're saying that even the proliferation proof technology CAN BE dual use, right? After all, the fuel has to be reprocessed. It can't just disappear. and with an outside country swapping fuel loads as needed there is no need for any in-country dual use technology. Unless that country doesn't want to have be reliant on the foreign country for its energy needs. So why is Iran insisting it needs dual use nuclear technology when, if all it wants is peaceful nukes, it could go with non-dual use technology? That's sort of like asking why doesn't the USA just buy all of its oil from OPEC instead of pumping its own oil. Because Iran doesn't want to be reliant on a foreign cartel to provide its nuclear energy. And because it is Iran's fundamental right to have access to the technology. Look, the best way to control the technology is through joint-ventures. Iran would be happy to allow that. But the USA is saying "No way - no nuclear technology AT ALL" - and that's just not going to fly. You can't stick the toothpaste it back into the tube. Go back, read something reasonable about nuclear technology, and then come back and post. Until then, quit posting factually wildly incorrect statements such as "all nuclear technology is inherently dual use". All nuclear technology is inherently dual use, especially because it can be CHARACTERIZED as such. Heck the US even objects to Iran gaining access to the lowest-level, safest nuclear technology because it COULD provide Iranians with the knowledge to one day POSSIBLY build nukes. And so could my pocket calculator. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Thelasian wrote:
Sure, it "could" but so could my pocket calculator. If you're going to make specious arguments that LWRs (and your pocket calculator) can be considered as dual-use technology, then, once again, you don't know the internationally accepted definitions of "dual use" (go read the IAEA's site, for example) and there's no use arguing with ignorance. And because it is Iran's fundamental right to have access to the technology. If you believe in this statement, then I believe in the statement that it is the right and responsibility of the rest of the world - through the UN and the IAEA, in this case - to deny that 'right' to countries believed to be too unstable (which, yes, I'd like to see NK added - but the example of NK just goes to prove the point it's far easier to stop a country before it has any than after). And note from my original post that France, Germany & Britian are unhappy, not just the USA, so no US bashing in this case. And might I inquire from what source or document this "fundamental right" derives? I'm not aware of anything in the UN documents that provides this "fundamental right" to all countries. A country's "fundamental rights" end where it's actions or planned actions concerns its neighboring countries (more broadly speaking in this day and age than past) enough for them to act to counter it. See, for example: "It has been argued here that Article 51 of the Charter of the UN includes the customary international law right of anticipatory self-defense... Israel acted within those limits... This particular use of force constituted an appropriate application of the right of anticipatory self-defense in international law." from "Self-Defense in International Law: The Israeli Raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor", Timothy L. H. McCormack, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996, p. 302. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield | Paul J. Adam | Military Aviation | 1 | August 9th 04 08:29 PM |
Libya Returns Nuclear Fuel to Russia | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 3 | March 17th 04 05:29 PM |
Israel to Destroy Iran's Nuclear Power Plants | Air Force Jayhawk | Military Aviation | 7 | February 23rd 04 06:39 PM |
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 25 | January 17th 04 02:18 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |