Iranian Heavy Water Nuke Plant Goes Online Today 820
avtchillsboro writes "According to an article in the NYT, an Iranian heavy water nuke plant goes online today. From the article: 'An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the plant, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes. The announcement comes days before Thursday's U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment — which also can be used to create nuclear weapons — or face economic and political sanctions.'"
The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Funny)
Delta Force: "Let's ignore international law and steal their oil."
SAS: "Why are there no fucking pubs in this bloody desert?"
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Interesting)
You grossly oversimplify; actually, the situation was a lot more complex than that. Saddam was selling oil way too cheap, in euros, to the French. So we didn't like him.
Corrupt "Oil for Food" program - Heard of it? (Score:3, Informative)
Right.... and the reason that Enron's executives are liable for repaying $183 million [foxnews.com], and probably jail time, is that their stock "under-performed" the market.
Saddam used the wholly corrupt "Oil for Food" [nationalreview.com] program to bribe all manner of foreign officials [washingtontimes.com], buy influence in the Security Council, undermine UN sanctions, buy weapons, and fund te
No, you don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem was that the second largest oil field in the world would soon only be available in Euros. Which would mean that oil buyers wouldn't have to buy dollars to get the oil. Which reduces the demand for US dollars. So. supply and demand. demand for dollars decreases, the value decreases, the US dollar begins falling in value. The dollar is worth less the more of them you need to buy things, That's called inflation and guess what, devaluing dollars severely limits the US government's ability to print more of them with abandon, to pay their huge military, to pay huge subsidies to industry and farmers etc etc.
Guess what. Iran is planning to set up an oil exchange which would operate in Euros. I wonder who's going to be hit next.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Iranian Threat to Western Society (Score:3, Interesting)
ASSERTION: If the Iranians build nuclear weapons, then the Iranians will use them without reservation.
If the above assertion is false, then the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should proceed playing word games with the Iranians and allow them to continue using delaying tactics. Of course, the Iranian Muslims are
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I really can't tell. All I do know is that I have no ecpectation that the western world knows anything about the middle east (based on failure to discover 911 and the certain discovery of WMDs in Iraq).
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If something happens to the Iranian facility, either the U.S. or Israel will be blamed, even if another country's ambassador throws a stomping fit in the middle of the UN General Assembly and screams, "We did too blow it up!"
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Reading this reminds of Bush's Axis of Evil speech. Convenient, simple-minded, defined by a narrow-enough perspective that appeals to voters, and effective in removing the complexities of the situation so as to allow everyone to move forward without thinking. A few bullet point for thought.
Iran is a sovereign country. Irrespective of what anyone's opinion of their current leadership (or the public rhetoric of their leadership), I think that is A Good Thing. Remember that they had to overthrow the US-supported Shah to get their country back. Hardly surprising they view the US with contempt and distrust.
Iran is surrounded by nations with nuclear capabilities, and most of those nations are perceived, to one degree or another, as a threat. They fought a long, brutal war with Iraq only to have the US move in and set up camp. Hardly a stretch to consider that they, too, have legitimate defense needs. Notable among the list of those nations is Israel. Think what you want about Israel, but the folks in Lebanon most certainly view, and justifiably so, Israel as real threat. I doubt the the folks in Iran intend to wait to be bombed to rubble for them to justify their concerns to the western world.
The US doesn't talk directly with Iran. Or with Syria. Or with North Korea. Or with many other nations for that matter. So much for the diplomatic process, and so much for the extent of US influence in the region.
Iran sits on a lot of oil. Our economy depends on that oil continuing to flow. The bluster about taking direct action, or hinting to Israel that they direct action on our behalf may work for the voters, but balancing "national security" concerns includes ensuring the US economy continues to grow.
To my mind, the only possible outcome is for the US, and by extension, its allies, is to move toward acccepting the eventuality that Iran will in due time have nuclear weapons and nothing anyone says or does is going to change that. Once the US learns live with that, maybe the Iranians will get over their hatred of the US and it's involvement in their own country, and its continuing involvement in the countries that surround it.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Insightful)
The US cannot learn to live with another nation developing nuclear weapons who wants to destroy another nation. Say what you will about current US foreign policy, but we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties and avoid use of excessive force. Terrorists do the opposite, as seen on countless occasions. After 9/11, two options were available to the Bush administration - nuclear strikes on al Qeida bases in Afghanistan, and special forces teams. There was no possibility of ground invasion for some time. Would the leadership of Iran, placed in the same situation, be so reluctant to use nuclear force?
There is no economic gain to an attack on or invasion of Iran. None that would be realized within 15-20 years at least, and by that time the need for oil would have reduced as alternative energy options come online. Any time the slightest conflict erupts in the middle east, oil jumps another $10/bbl. That said, our economy has continued to grow despite a doubling of the price of gasoline in the past five years.
In regards to your comment about Israel/Lebanon, I am a bit taken aback. Israel acted with extreme restraint in the face of continuing Hezbollah attacks launched from Lebanon. They had pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 after the UN adopted a resolution stating that a UN force would disarm Hezbollah and enforce a peace. The UN and Lebanon both failed to do so over the course of six years. When terrorist attacks increased, Israel did what any sovereign nation has a right to do - retaliate and disarm. Were civilians killed? Yes. Were Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah attacks? Yes. The difference is that Israel wasn't targeting those civilians. Terrorists like to hide in civilian areas in order to cause casualties like CNN was so happy to show.
The situation in the middle east is perhaps unrepairable. The rest of the world can't tolerate dictatorships bent on the destruction of each other and the acquisition of nuclear arms. The people of the middle east can't tolerate the rest of the world interfering and apparently can't tolerate each other's differences enough to get along under a democratic system of government.
I see no real solution short of allowing them to obliterate each other, which means we need to stop using their oil.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Thoughtful and reasoned replies I've found are always more useful than the knee-jerk reaction I was expecting. The only thing I can say in response to any They Did This Because of That is that the Middle East has a long history of action/reaction, and the continuation of the cycle, while grotesque and unfathomable to us outsiders, has support from both sides. My own opinion is that like everything in life, there are two sides to every story, and in this story, both are sides are equally culpable.
My motive, if there was one, was to highlight the possibility that an average person or family in Lebanon doesn't have to an extremist to view the destruction in his country as something more than the abstract interplay of geopolitical forces, or the calculated military maneuverings of their respective militaries. Put another way, if someone bombs your neighbourhood in the ground and kills most of your family or neighbours, chances are you'd view the person who did the bombing as a dangerous threat. If you're smart, you flee the country (as many did). If you're angry and armed, you take up weapons and fight back. If your're angry and without arms, you do throw rocks and molotov cocktails like the poor in the Palestinian territories.
As for Iran, I think we'd all agree their rhetoric is alarming, but then I find the speeches of Bush, Cheney & Co. alarming as well. I can say that and laugh, but I don't live in the Middle East. If I was an Iranian citizen, I wouldn't be laughing, but I would be proud that my country wants to extert its influence in the region (the Shia crescent), and find a perverse but perfectly-human satisfaction that my country could snub its nose at a greater power. Not unlike a typical US citizen who feel proud when the US goes out to remake the world in its own image, or thumping their chest when the conversation involves United Nations, the WTO, or internal treaties of any sort.
I'm afraid that the US will, for the time being, continue to prosecute its bogeyman theories, while the bogeymans themselves (Russia, Cuba, Iran, and so on), will continue on despite, or perhaps in spite. One thing is certain if not a constant in each case. Someone is Really Pissed Off. Doesn't hurt to ask, or consider why that is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice troll, but two days before the massacre in Qana the Israeli military told the press that they considered civilians in southern Lebanon a legitimate target.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Informative)
Who is this "international community"? Would it be ok if they didn't announce it first?
If Iran does develop a nuclear bomb and uses it against Israel, the retaliatory strike from Israel would result in casualties that are simply beyond anything any previous war has shown us. Yet Iran's leadership may well be foolish enough to do it anyway, if only to ensure that the rest of the middle east would destroy Israel.
The leaderships of Israel and the US don't exactly qualify as sane but even they might reconsider attacking a nuclear armed state.
Never underestimate the blind arrogance of religious zealotry.
No shortage of that with the Israeli and US Governments right now.
The US cannot learn to live with another nation developing nuclear weapons who wants to destroy another nation.
Why should the US care about Asian countries pointing nuclear weapons at other Asian countries? Why would a nuclear exchange between Iraq and Israel be worst than one between India and Pakistan...
Say what you will about current US foreign policy, but we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties and avoid use of excessive force.
The simplist way to do this would be not to invade other countries.
After 9/11, two options were available to the Bush administration - nuclear strikes on al Qeida bases in Afghanistan, and special forces teams. There was no possibility of ground invasion for some time.
Actually there were plenty of things the US Government could have done, but did not do.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh, compare that to the 150,000 to 340,000 (depending on who you ask) Iraquis Saddam killed. Then, there were the 450,000 to 700,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq war. Sorry, but regardless of whether US is involved in a middle east war, Arabs always kill more Arabs than anyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Was Abu Gharib within those rules of engagement? How about the torture in guantanamo bay? The thing is, you're right, we have no fucking clue, and I'll bet if we knew the whole story it would look a helluva lot worse than it is. you can look at yourselves through rose coloured glasses if you like, the rest of the world with a half a brain knows what this war is really about.
You don't even know why you're there. First it was because Saddam had WMD's. Now that ya'll look like fools in the eye of the world and have turned up nothing, y'all simply change your mission objectives to say it's to liberate the Iraqis (who incidentally did not seem to want you there at all [comw.org]).
I admit I don't have as much of a clue as I'd like. I point you to articles like this [freep.com] where you have the police policing the police, only answering to themselves. I don't buy it and you shouldn't either.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I judge by the military's response to the actions of the minority. Rest assured if the media attention was not on Abu Gharib (sort of like it isn't on Guantanamo Bay), the military response would have been quite different.
Look, I respect those of you who fight in Iraq. You probably believe it's a noble cause. Truth is this war in Iraq has cost the US almost a trillion dollars. Think about the kickass health care system ya'll would have if you invested alomst a trillian dollars into it. How man American's lives would have been saved if the money was better allocated back home, to health and education?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all read this [worldnetdaily.com] article by Patrich Buchanan. Here are some quotes from that article.
""Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah," roared Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon on July 27"
"The Israeli paper then summarized what the justice minister and general were saying: "In other words, a village from which rockets are f
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they're not. They're designed primarily to spread damage capabilities against lightly- or non-armored targets over a maximum area per weapon. They were intended to deal with soft targets that are often spread out or in difficult-to-reach locations such as in hilly or mountainous terrain, or which spread over a large area, such as happened with Soviet-era SAM bases, which were designed such that a single powerful bomb could not destroy the entire complex, whereas one cluster bomb had a decent chance of damaging every launcher to such an extent as to render the location useless. This also makes them useful against artillery, which includes rocket artillery, which Hezbollah makes great use of, firing from scattered locations.
They are, of course, quite effective against civilians, since civilians are rarely well-armored, but this is incidental. That Israel used them bothers me greatly, as I am generally in favor of the removal from service of the common dumb weapons that make up cluster munitions, and was quite pleased when the US began doing so some time ago. From a moral perspective, I would rather have seen their use avoided, but from a tactical perspective, it's easy to see their utility.
Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000, and this was certified by the UN. Later, every militia group in Lebanon disarmed -- except for Hezbollah. Hezbollah continued periodic attacks against Israel for six years, including attacking outposts and patrols, kidnapping soldiers, and the occasional rocket attack into northern Israel, on the fictional basis that Israel had not completed its withdrawal because it was still in the Shebaa Farms area, a location that no map in the last century has showed as part of Lebanon, save for one that conveniently showed up in 2000 and which was claimed to have dated from the 1960s, and which was contradicted by official Lebanese and Syrian maps printed over the ensuing decades.
Hezbollah views Israel as a snake. Well, if you keep prodding a snake that has nowhere to which it can retreat, at some point it will lash out, and Hezbollah claimed surprise that it did so, suggesting that the response was unprovoked. While it's possible to claim that Israel's response was out of scale (and I do think that it was), I don't think anyone can reasonably believe that Israel was completely unprovoked.
And for those that think that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians and not causing collateral damage when attempting to deal with Hezbollah infrastructure, consider that an average of 30 Lebanese (including Hezbollah fighters) were killed each day over the course of the war. If Israel was capable of killing dozens with a single bomb, and civilians were what Israel was after, then why was the overall count not in the several tens of thousands? If Israel was capable of hitting Hezbollah bunkers, then why did it not hit a few dozen civilian bunkers, where dozens or hundreds could have been killed in short order?
Lebanon is in a very poor position. Due to both the unwillingness of the Lebanese government and the world to force a disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon, it has remained a pawn, even after Syria's withdrawal, in a larger game of which most of its people want no part. It is the only state in the Middle East that has significant fractional percentages of multiple religions living largely peacefully in the same set of borders. Muslims (Sunni and Shiite), Druze, Christians, and (until recently) even Jews lived there. I see more hope in a better Middle East in Lebanon than I do in Israel. Until Lebanon can be helped to rid itself of Hezbollah, it will remain as a pawn, and subject to outside interference from Israel, Iran, and Syria, and its people will continue to suffer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Considering Hitler died in 1945 and Israel wasn't a state until 1948, I'm not the least bit suprised that Hitler refused to recognise Isreal.
Re:Typical Peace-Nick Response (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No shit. They refuse to recognize Israel and their main goal is to eliminate Israel and the Jews from the planet."
So what? Why should that dictate who the US talks to and not? Am I paying my taxes to serve the interest of israel or the US?
I didn't say N. Korea had Nukes and anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
N. Korea's deterrence is the fact that they can launch an artillery barrage that could kill at least 100000 residents of Seoul. Nukes would also allow them to hold hostage a larger area.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Interesting)
The situation in Iraq makes any US action that might be perceived as risking our troops a political impossibility; and the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese aren't interested in doing anything about Iran's nuclear ambitions in general, because they know they won't be the first targets of any weapons they produce.
Thus, the overall stage seems set for Tehran to continue as long and as far as they can: with Israel tied up because of Lebanon and the US pinned due to Iraq, there's no reason not to go for the bomb.
Unless there's a major shift in attitude and pressure, I think it's really only a matter of time before Iran goes nuclear; already a pariah state, they have little to lose and much to gain. And once they have it, it seems to be only a further interlude before it's used on the obvious target, Israel, whether directly or by proxy.
The real question is, what happens then?
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the lesson that developing nations around the world have learned.
Noone fucks with you once you have nukes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is patently untrue. See 9/11/2001 for examples. This leads us to an interesting problem. Is Iran willing to nuke Israel through a terrorist proxy? If yes, goto Israel nuking Iran pre-emptively.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't under estimate the ability of the Iranians to defend them selves. I'm no fan of the Iranian regime but don't assume that just because they are Islamic fundamentalists they must also be idiots. These people have managed to keep US made F-14 jets in full use with spare parts made in Iran (or procured from corrupt sources in the US military) for over 20 years. They have even upgraded and re-manufactured significant amount of the military gear they got from the Americans prior to the revolution (and let's not forget all the toys they got from President Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal). The Iranian military leadership was trained US instructors some of whom also trained the Israelis. They have also forged some very cozy relationships with Russia and more importantly China who supplies them with high-tech weapons some of whom, ironically enough, incorporate technology that is Israeli in origin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony would be fit for a Shakespearean tragedy.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Informative)
Except that Iran is not an Arab state. No more than is Indonesia. "Arab" simply describes people who speak Arabic. Muslim!=Arab. Oh, and the Arab states *certainly* don't consider Iranians their "brethren." Arabs and Persians hate each other!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is, if someone has the brain and knowledge base the size of a worm --- or a Dan Quayle, Richard Perle, Bill Krystol, Paul Wolfowitz (Oh no, he's running the World Banko..)!
Of course, should one choose to apply a little knowledge to the situation to elucidate it: the Israelis have sold nuclear technology to the Chinese (plus other weapon systems), which the Chinese have sold to the Iranians, while the Soviets have sold the Iranians their SS m
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is what prevented the Cold War from warming up. It might take the current crisis in the Middle East off the boil as well.
Consider this:
For this last reason, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's beligerent stance towards Israel is largely regarded as rhetoric. Afterall, Mutually Assured Destruction is, well, mutual.
I for one think Iran having nuclear weapons will make us stop taking ill-advised decisions when it comes to meddling in the affairs of small, oil-rich countries.
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have here is one side which is a secular democratic power who have never actually stated they have nuclear capabilities. on the other side you have a theocracy who glorifies honorable death, and has publicly stated it's will to distroy the other side.
* thanks to what we know now of Curtis La-may's recomendations during the kuba missle crises - I think it's pretty obvious that we had more luck then brains with MAD. Most people don't know how close we were to distructions back then.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Israel is anything but secular.
-molo
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I also find it ironic about people going on about Iran when Israel for example actually built a fake nuclear control room so that the UN inspectors couldn't determine that they where building nuclear weapons.
But the most classic is that people stating they should bomb the plants, some even say nuke the plants. Have yo
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
With Iraq it was mostly case of "prove that you DON'T have any WMD's" other than "let us see if you have any", and as common sense dictates, it is way harder to prove that something doesn't exist than offer proof of somethings existence. There hasn't been any discoveries of WMD's in Iraq since the invasion...
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
<rant>
The real problem is that the USA has pissed off all its allies with the result that none of them will contribute to any US led invasion in the middle east or any place else. Perhaps after the next US presidential election but not as long as GWB sits in the white house. The US has also used up a great big chunk of it's resources on the war in Iraq, it has
Re:The problem is not the bomb itself (Score:5, Informative)
explaining what the fuss is about israel [google.com]
english MP mr Galloway blows ignorant "reporter" OUT OF THE FRICKEN WATER! [google.com] hehe makes me laugh every time.
interview with iranian prime minister. [spiegel.de][sarcasm] WOw he sounds really crazy...[/sarcasm]
two [byu.edu] more [journalof911studies.com] links you should really read, though I doubt many will.
well thats all I can do. I cant FORCE you to watch them, and I doubt many will, but if even a couple do, and realise something interesting about the world as they knew it, I'll be happy
Mr Galloway does go too far but (Score:3, Interesting)
Additionally you ahve to understand that while the vast majority of Israelis are reasonable folk and peaceloving, there are extremists (including terrorists) who feel that it is th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the US economy is dependent on blowing up children in the middle east then I say yes bring on the collapse. Then maybe we could revitilize the midwest by growing corn or even better hemp for all our fuel needs. I'm tired of hearing how we need the middle east for our economy while I see daily pictures of blown apart innocents. It's just not worth
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(Sigh.) No. Japan bombed Pearl Harbour because US interference was causing serious problems for them (oil supply ones mainly, IIRC), and they wanted to weaken the US enough that it'd leave them alone to conqueor the area they were really interested in.
Right. (Score:4, Funny)
UN: Stop enriching uranium or face political and economic consequences.
Iran: Do so and we will stop selling you oil. China will buy it if you don't. Continue your threats and we will use our position in OPEC against you.
UN: Uhhh....
Oil economics (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Right. (Score:4, Funny)
Iran: We have safety personnel, etc.
US: Not those kind of accidents...
Iran: What kind?
US: The kind that fall out of planes.
UN: That's mean!
Iran: And we still have that oil, we'll stop selling!
US: Yeah... Ever heard of Alaska?
Iran: Touche.
Re:Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
oil is a commodity, an expensive one but still a commodity. As such a single supplier cant really threaten a single customer (they can stop exporting thier oil altogether but that would hurt all oil customers as well as thier own pockets)
Nothing extremists love more than opposition... (Score:4, Insightful)
Iran has money to burn, and UN sanctions don't seem to be particularly effective ways to convince to governments; it's the proletariat who suffer. In the meanwhile, Iran's government gets to play the "it's us against the (non-Muslim) world!" card again. Jihad, anyone?
Count me in the skeptic camp (Score:5, Insightful)
With Israel a known (suspected within 99.999%) holder of nukes, Iran sees themselves as the logical counterpoint. They do mean to make weapons, of this I have no doubt.
Peaceful purposes? The iranian prez has said Israel should be wiped off the map. He doesn't strike me as a man with peaceful intentions.
Re:Count me in the skeptic camp (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing about their whole program says anything besides "bomb development," and that doesn't bode particularly well for regional stability, particularly with their president regularly sounding like the second coming of Heinrich Himmler.
That said, I'm not sure, given the number of nuclear weapons that are floating around in the world today, that it's practical to assume that we'll keep the Iranians from acquiring them indefinitely. In fact, it's starting to look more and more like the worldwide non-proliferation age is over. The question isn't whether a nuclear weapon will be used in the Middle East, and it's hardly even a question who it will be used against. The question is where, and when, and what the response will be.
Re:Count me in the skeptic camp (Score:5, Funny)
When he said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map", what he *really* meant was that Israel's military aggressiveness should be wiped off the map. And when he said Jews are evil, what he *really* means what that militaristic Zionism is evil. And when he said each and every Jew in the entire world should be rounded up and taken to concentration camps to be killed, what he *really* meant was that he wants to kill the spirit of hatred that resides in the hearts of Israel's policymakters!
Don't read him out of context!
Re:Count me in the skeptic camp (Score:4, Informative)
A better translation, with context:
When you see a quote attributed to someone who was unlikely to have been speaking English, remember to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But what will protect them from the United States? You, see... US's president alread made it clear (several times) that he wants to go into Iran. Since long before their nuclear project was a problem.
Interview with Iranian Nuclear Chief (Score:5, Insightful)
One quote that might interest people from the interview is this:
Mohammad Saeidi is a practical man. Sidestepping the political, ideological and historical aspects of the nuclear dispute with the West, the vice-president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation is focused on a set of problems that must be solved logically if the country and its people are to develop to their full potential. "The country's oil and gas reserves will last a maximum of another 25 or 30 years," he says. "Therefore we have to provide other resources."
If you are an American, please don't support your current administrations drive to cause yet another war by believing their propaganda about Iran. Really, you should trust your politicians as soon as they find the WMD that they told you existed in Iraq.
Please don't let Bush plunge the world into the Realm of $200 a barrel oil prices by attacking Iran.
Re:Interview with Iranian Nuclear Chief (Score:4, Insightful)
Three different reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
One is the grandfather clause. Basically when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was signed it allowed those nations who already had nukes to keep them. So the US can have them for the same reason as Russia, the UK, France, and so on. That would be the legalistic view.
Another would be because the US has a stable government with excellent protections against accidental launch, or deliberate launch by a rogue person. You can Google around for the details if you wish, but what it comes down to is that GWB can't just wake up one day and decide to nuke a country for the fun of it. He lacks the authority and the ability. The US also cares for the lives of its' citizens to a high degree, and has a stable government that doesn't get overthrown all the time. That's the somewhat moral view.
Finally, there's the simple matter that nobody can stop them. They've got the biggest military, and the amount of nukes they have is such that they can annihilate anyone they wish. There's no possibility of any sort of invasion or strike that could take out even a fraction of the US arsenal before they could retaliate. So there's simply nothing anyone can do about it. That's the practical view.
You can take it any way you like but it really isn't comparable to Iran getting nukes. The US is allowed, under internal law, to have it's nukes, they are not (despite some ranting on Slashdot) run by extremists that can launch them at any time, and there's just really nothing anyone can do to take them away. Iran isn't allowed to develop nukes, there is a concern that they would use them given that there are no controls in the country stopping their hard line government from doing so, and as it happens they can be stopped.
I'm not saying that they should be stopped, that's a different argument. However trying to say "The US has nukes so Iran getting them is the same thing," isn't the case, regardless of what level you choose to look at it on.
Radioactive Oil (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As an American, I am in favor of invading Iran to steal their nuclear power plants, as the US is sorely lacking this natural resource.
Iranian Heavy Water Nuke Plant Goes Online Today (Score:2, Funny)
How long before it feels the slashdot effect?
So sad... (Score:2)
The Iranians and Osama could both just crush Bush in any contest physical or mental, not that Bush could ever find either of them. Iran (any OPEC country) or China (who has all our money) can completely and totally destoy our economy at any time.
It's really quite depressing to be an American these days, and I can hear Hezbola (a branch of the Iranian government) laughing from here, which doesn't help.
I for one
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Read a newspaper article on that topic.
Note how grotesquely ill-informed the reporter and editorial staff are on that topic? Notice all the basic and fundamental errors they make that shine out as eye-searing actinic flares to you, given your far greater knowledge of that field of human endeavour?
Extrapolate this to all the topics you're not as familiar with.
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Funny)
Best chuckle I've had all day here! Thanks for that, and since you done me a good turn....I've got some oceanfront real estate here in Oklahoma I'll make you a real sweet deal on!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dangerous but not deadly (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, while a plutonium device is a ball of plutonium surrounded by concentric spheres of perfectly timed explosives, a uranium device is the equivalent of a 5-inch diameter gun which fires a uranium slug at a uranium target. The advantage of a plutonium device is obvious: it's small. The disadvantage of a plutonium device is the fact that it's very, very difficult to get the timing right so that you don't incinerate the plutonium before it goes critical. Meanwhile, a uranium device is dirt-simple to develop once you have the material. However, these things are huge. So huge, in fact, that you need something the size of a B29 in order to deliver it. We're talking several tons here.
Incidentally, the US developed one of each during the Manhattan Project, culminating in the two dropped bombs: Little Boy and Fat Man (no prizes for guessing which is which). While the Plutonium devices needed to be tested to make sure it worked, the scientists didn't even bother to test a uranium explosive at full scale. They just dropped the sucker.
Basically, this boils down to a pretty simple reality: even if Iran develops a uranium device, they can't deliver it. They can't put it on a missile, and I think it's a 100% certainty that Israel (or anyone else, for that matter, though Israel is the most likely target) would shoot down anything the size of a B29 flying in from Iran. If I had to guess, I'd wager that's why the Bush administration doesn't seem terribly worried about Iran. North Korea is a different matter, but Iran just isn't as big of a threat as everyone seems to be making it out to be.
And as an aside, it's certainly tempting to say "well, they could just put it on a boat and hide it and float it to a port and explode it." However, there are a couple of problems. First of all, each nuclear device that Iran develops will be a sort of force-multiplier for its power in the region. So if it develops--say--three devices, that means that losing just one is going to be a dramatic blow to its power. If you say that there's a 50/50 chance that the device will actually make it to its target, there's just no way to rationalize that risk. Much better to use the threat as leverage. The Iranian leaders don't subscribe to Western modes of thought, but they're aren't utterly irrational.
LR
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We're past the age of the cruise missile. We know full well that any plane can be a delivery vehicle. I know too little of the local geography, flight paths, and etc - but exactly how long would it take to fly a 737 far enough into israeli space to make it worth detonating one of these nuclear devices? With a cruising speed around 500 knots ~550 mph.
Haifa looks to be about 20 miles south o
Re:Dangerous but not deadly (Score:5, Informative)
WP confirms this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water#Neutron_
The uranium enrichment facilities (centrifuges, etc.) which Iran was also constructing, can be seen as a parallel bomb-making process. They're all part of the isotope separation, which brings natural uranium up to the point where it can be either reacted in a light water reactor, or used in a bomb (depending on whether you go to around 3% for a power reactor or all the way up to 90+% for a bomb). On the whole, a uranium enrichment facility is a lot less problematic than a Pu-breeder reactor, as long as it's monitored. (So that you can tell how far they're enriching the uranium.)
So you're correct about the uranium devices being somewhat less problematic than the plutonium devices; they tend to be bigger and have a lower power for their size and weight, and I don't think they can be as easily used as the initiator of a hydrogen (fusion) bomb. However, the reason the whole heavy water thing is news, is because it shows Iran is going for the smaller weapons as well.
As other people have pointed out though, right now they're working on making the heavy water that would go in a breeder reactor, it's not clear that they actually have the capability yet. The real showdown will happen once they actually have a reactor built and fueled which is capable of breeding plutonium from natural or low-enriched uranium. Allowing them to have that capability would be tacit acceptance of an Iran which is not only nuclear, but has the capability of producing nuclear cruise missles, and perhaps thermonuclear weapons as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See the W33 [wikipedia.org] for an example of a light and compact nuclear weapon that uses HEU and gun assembly.
Possible options (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Air strikes, don't know where all the facilities are and many of those we do are located so far underground that conventional weapons are useless. Not only that but Iran would no doubt cut off oil supplies which would cause an oil crisis.
3. Military invasion, not enough troops because of our excursion into Iraq. The only possible alternative is a draft.
4. Leave it for the next administration to sort out, the most likely scenario.
Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fun to get people worked up with such a headline (and almost all the AP wire sites did so), but on closer examination, it's hard to get too outraged at Iran for manufacturing something that you can buy on eBay.
He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother (Score:4, Informative)
It's always been a bad idea to proliferate nukes in the Mideast, a part of the world controlled by politicians defined more by death's rewards than life's opportunities. Reading more of the history of Iran's nukes helps explain why the French are so deeply involved, and how the roles of the US and Russia are so "complicated".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The lesson that should be painfully obvious to anyone looking is that the CIA, America's secret police, controls the profitable parts of the US government for dynasties of American industrialists. I just hope it's not too la
Re:Ok..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Before Hitler rose to power in Germany, Bush Sr's father Prescott Bush funded Hitler [google.com] to ensure his rise. And continued to fund Hitler even as those funds paid for bullets fired at American troops, until stopped for violating the "Trading With the Enemy" laws. Once the bullets stopped, Prescott Bush's boss Averill Harriman negotiated the deal for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [google.com], in return for which the CIA overthrew the democratically elected successor to the Shah, so the Shah would keep the AIOC deal. The Shah was such a "good customer" of the US that "we" set him up with a nuclear program under Richard Nixon. Whose staff included Dick Cheney, a frequent Director of corporations funded and directed by Harriman and Bush, even through the 1980s. Who has done everything he could to give Iran "reasons" to get nukes, while supplying them with Iran/Contra military parts and recently handing them Iraq.
So don't tell ME about crazy people with nukes. I've got the whole barrel of monkeys on my radar. And, through my taxes and against my votes, many of them on my payroll.
Give them all nukes. (Score:4, Insightful)
My solution would for the US to build one ICBM for each country in the UN. If you're in the UN, here's ONE nuke. You only get one.
* You want true equality around the world, there it is. Every country is now equal.
* You want to end wars, you've done it. No one can invade anyone else or risk getting nuked.
* Talk about one world government? Now it's really possible.
Give them all nukes.
Re:Give them all nukes. (Score:4, Insightful)
You also presume that every country will have the same capability of deploying those things.
They don't.
Once one of those countries realizes it, they'll use it on the people the don't like, and that'll be the start of something much much worse.
It's a heavy water plant, not a reactor (Score:3, Informative)
A heavy water plant is not a nuclear reactor. Nothing in a heavy water plant is radioactive. Or, for most processes, even toxic. Here's a tutorial on heavy water plants [cns-snc.ca]. They're not very complicated or especially large. This is the easy step in the process.
The next step is a nuclear reactor fueled with natural uranium and moderated with heavy water, which can be used, with difficulty, to produce plutonium. This is the route Pakistan took. Here's Pakistan's heavy water plant [isis-online.org] and its companion nuclear reactor [isis-online.org]. Israel's Dimona reactor [globalsecurity.org] is also of this type. So this is the standard route to nuclear weapons for small countries. This step is much harder and riskier, but the technology is half a century old.
There are other approaches. The United States initially used water-cooled graphite-moderated reactors fueled with natural uranium for plutonium production, as did Russia. Britain used air-cooled graphite-moderated reactors. (Bad idea. The Windscale reactor had a fire in 1957, releasing a considerable amount of radioactive material.) Once both countries had uranium-enrichment capability, newer reactors mostly used low-grade enriched uranium. Both the US and the USSR got so good at plutonium production that both now have tons (literally) of the stuff in storage, in addition to the weapons using it. A nuclear weapon requires about 5Kg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're sitting on one of the richest petroleum reserves in the world, and selling it off in order to get hard currency, which they want to use to develop a domestic energy industry that relies on imported nuclear fuel? Right.
I'm not saying it's a complete impossibility; under different leadership, in a different situation, if their priorities were obviously not what they are today, it might make sense for them to be looking for a post-petroleum e
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217424.stm [bbc.co.uk]
On 15 August, 2004, Atefah Sahaaleh was hanged in a public square in the Iranian city of Neka.
Her death sentence was imposed for "crimes against chastity".
The state-run newspaper accused her of adultery and described her as 22 years old.
But she was not married - and she was just 16.
Sharia Law
In terms of the number of people executed by the state in 2004, Iran is estimated to be second only to China.
In the year of Atefah's death, at least 159 people we
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They already started a proxy war with Israel and mentioned the Lebannon war was proof that Israel must be destroyed. You want this country to have a nuclear weapon?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is such a piece of blatent propaganda, and everyone seems to have fallen for it. The Iranian president has never said this, or anything like it. He says he doesn't recognise the legitimacy of the regime that occupies Jerusalem. Most Arabs say the same thing. He didn't say he wanted to wipe the country off the map, as is discussed here [wikipedia.org], amongst other places.
Additionally, the US could also be accused of fighting a proxy war in
Re:International Blackmail (Score:5, Informative)
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran [hrw.org]
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_ira
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/02/49f8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4114621.st
From the BBC article:
The execution of children
Torture, as well as degrading punishments such as amputation, flogging and stoning
Discrimination against women and girls
The persecution of political opponents, following last February's mass disqualification of opposition candidates in the run-up to parliamentary elections
Discrimination against minorities, including Christians, Jews, Sunni Muslims, and in particular followers of the Baha'i faith, including arbitrary arrest and detention.
Can we start being worried yet?
Can we start telling them they can't do this yet?
Or are these still wonderful people who should have A-bombs?
*sits and waits for the moral equivalency arguments*
Re:International Blackmail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"We still reserve the right to fuck you up."
That's how I view the Iran situation. Let them pursue their "peaceful" ambitions (Yeah, I'm sure, but pre-emptive warfare is bullshit), but as soon as they slip they're going to get it, and hard. Listening to their president is enough to make me puke from the rhetoric, especially regarding Hezbollah, and I find it difficult to believe someone could bother me more than Bush when they open their mouth. Same arrogant asshole, different place 'n face.
So you'd prefer "Nukey-er"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I for, one, do NOT welcome our new-clear, Shi'ite Overlords. No matter how you pronounce "nuclear", or, for that matter, "Shi'ite".
Re:The reason why Iran wants Nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
There is perception and then there is reality. Few politicians are what they appear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FP was meant to be a joke...it isn't flamebait.
Why doesn't cringe every time the guys says Nucular?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"peaceful energy needs" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Heavy Water? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Heavy Water? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. See for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor [wikipedia.org] - sure, you don't generate the power from the heavy water itself, but it's needed for that kind of reactor. Together with uranium, which, surprise, they also are building an enrichment plant for.
While I do not completely trust this enterprise to be peaceful, I don't trust the U.S., Israel, the U.K., Russia or any of the other countries that already *have* nuclear weapons, and in the case of the U.S. have used them. Until the nuclear weapon carrying countries that already exists have dismantled their last bombs and missiles, I'll continue finding their cries about others building research facilities or nuclear plants very hypocritical.
Well, at least this time the evidence is somewhat better than the "Oh, oh, they've got metal pipes - they're building nukes!" used as a motive to invade Iraq...