NationStates Jolt Archive

What planet is Iran living on exactly?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc

"Iran said seeking help with nuclear reactor" (from the U.N.)

EDIT link fixed

They'll get it too. The rest of the world will now take part in helping this energy poor nation heat their homes. :rolleyes: They have every right, you know.

And before you know it, Iran will be wagging something big in our faces and we'll be forced to comply.

What planet is Iran living on exactly?

One where countries are free to explore nuclear power.

One where countries are free to explore nuclear power.

LOL. Thats like going to a bank teller and asking if you can borrow a gun. Sure you can ask, but i wouldnt recommend it.

Two bombs a year, huh? Yeah, they'll be a real nuclear power. Seriously, nations like Germany and Japan could probably produce two bombs by next week, by the end of the month tops.

Problem is, that the US have lost some credibility since Colin Powell did his little show at the Security Council about Iraq's WMD...

Anyway, Iran will have nuclear power - it would be a good idea for the US to help them having it for peaceful purposes only. And giving them help might get the Iranian government more open to inspections.

Anyway, Iran will have nuclear power - it would be a good idea for the US to help them having it for peaceful purposes only. And giving them help might get the Iranian government more open to inspections.

Oh, you mean THIS part of the article?
Tehran has said the Arak reactor would be used to produce isotopes for peaceful purposes, but the project under construction is a large, heavy water-moderated reactor when a light-water research reactor is satisfactory for that task, they said.

Einhorn and Kimball noted that Britain, France and Germany offered to replace Iran's 40-megawatt heavy-water reactor with a light-water research reactor but Iran wasn't interested.

Tehran has said the Arak reactor would be used to produce isotopes for peaceful purposes, but the project under construction is a large, heavy water-moderated reactor when a light-water research reactor is satisfactory for that task, they said.

To me, this is the key. I have no problem with Iran having nuclear power for peaceful purposes. But, based on comments their government has made in the past, I don't trust it with weapons. If Iran truly only wants to generate electricity, why not just use a light-water research reactor? I admit, I'm not completely knowledgable about nuclear energy, but if it can be done with that, why not use it? The only reason to use the heavy water-moderated reactor instead is for weapons, isn't it?
So unless there is some information that I am ignorant of(about why to use the heavy water thing, for example), then only a fool would believe Iran.

LOL. Thats like going to a bank teller and asking if you can borrow a gun. Sure you can ask, but i wouldnt recommend it.

No, that's like going to a bank teller and asking if you can borrow some money.

They'll get it too. The rest of the world will now take part in helping this energy poor nation heat their homes. :rolleyes: They have every right, you know.

And before you know it, Iran will be wagging something big in our faces and we'll be forced to comply.

:confused:

No, that's like going to a bank teller and asking if you can borrow some money.

Actually, I don't think a good analogy can be drawn to the situation and banks at all. It's like attempting to buy an Mk 19 claiming that you're only going to use it for hunting and target shooting.

Actually, I don't think a good analogy can be drawn to the situation and banks at all. It's like attempting to buy an Mk 19 claiming that you're only going to use it for hunting and target shooting.

Were it not for the fact that an MK19 is unsuitable for that, while a nuclear reactor is kind of imperative for nuclear power, which Iran is entitled to.

They'll get it too. The rest of the world will now take part in helping this energy poor nation heat their homes. :rolleyes: They have every right, you know.

And before you know it, Iran will be wagging something big in our faces and we'll be forced to comply.

In 2000, Iran, which was the world’s fourth largest producer of crude oil, averaged about 3.72 million barrels per day (Mbbl/d). Average crude production had been 3.56 Mbbl/d in 1999 and 3.63 Mbbl/d in 1998. At the end of 2000, Iran had the second largest natural gas reserves (23 trillion cubic meters) and the fifth largest crude oil reserves [89.7 billion barrels (Gbbl)] in the world according to the Oil & Gas Journal (2000b). These figures apparently do not include 1999 or 2000 Iranian reserve additions. Petroleum continued to provide the bulk of Iran’s foreign exchange. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/oil.htm

No, that's like going to a bank teller and asking if you can borrow some money.

I dont understand your analogy at all. Mine breaks down as follows: a bankteller would be unwilling to allow someone to borrow a gun as it would be against his or her own self interest/safety and the Banks to do so. In the same way, the UN, who is currently pending resolutions highly critical of Irans programs, and highly suspicious of thier motives and intentions, would not lend nuclear information(ie the gun) to help build soemthing that it believes will be misused for dangerous purposes and thus would be a parellel to the bank teller. Please explain yours?

Were it not for the fact that an MK19 is unsuitable for that, while a nuclear reactor is kind of imperative for nuclear power, which Iran is entitled to.

This type of reactor is the wrong one though. It can be used for power but is less efficient than a light water reactor and produces far more waste.

Were it not for the fact that an MK19 is unsuitable for that, while a nuclear reactor is kind of imperative for nuclear power, which Iran is entitled to.

Well, you COULD hunt witha n MK19. But it'd be overkill and just not needed. Therefore, I'd assume that somebody who wants one wants it for it's lethal capabilities against people. Just like you COULD generate power with a heavy water reactor, but it's just not needed. A light water reactor would suffice. Therefore, I'd assume they want the heavy water reactor for it's lethal usage, to make bombs.

This type of reactor is the wrong one though. It can be used for power but is less efficient than a light water reactor and produces far more waste.

One starts with what one can accomplish, not with what is necessarily deigned suitable by someone on an Internet forum.

One starts with what one can accomplish, not with what is necessarily deigned suitable by someone on an Internet forum.

It helps when 3 counties offer to give you the correct reactor.

That Iran turned it down places huge question marks over why they want a reactor.

If Iran truly only wants to generate electricity, why not just use a light-water research reactor? I admit, I'm not completely knowledgable about nuclear energy, but if it can be done with that, why not use it? The only reason to use the heavy water-moderated reactor instead is for weapons, isn't it?


I think that a light-water moderator might have some problems in the coolant system; it is something linked to the quality of the tubes you're using for the cooling systems; but I cannot recall that precisely.

One starts with what one can accomplish, not with what is necessarily deigned suitable by someone on an Internet forum.

Reposting for the 3rd time now...

Tehran has said the Arak reactor would be used to produce isotopes for peaceful purposes, but the project under construction is a large, heavy water-moderated reactor when a light-water research reactor is satisfactory for that task, they said.

Einhorn and Kimball noted that Britain, France and Germany offered to replace Iran's 40-megawatt heavy-water reactor with a light-water research reactor but Iran wasn't interested.

Its not an issue of what Iran can or cant do. Its a matter of what they are willing to do.

I dont understand your analogy at all. Mine breaks down as follows: a bankteller would be unwilling to allow someone to borrow a gun as it would be against his or her own self interest/safety and the Banks to do so. In the same way, the UN, who is currently pending resolutions highly critical of Irans programs, and highly suspicious of thier motives and intentions, would not lend nuclear information(ie the gun) to help build soemthing that it believes will be misused for dangerous purposes and thus would be a parellel to the bank teller. Please explain yours?

You may want to learn about the third pillar of the NNTP.

It helps when 3 counties offer to give you the correct reactor.

That Iran turned it down places huge question marks over why they want a reactor.

They turned it down for a very good reason: it is their prerogative to do so, being a sovereign nation, and not be dependant on foreigners.

You may want to learn about the third pillar of the NNTP.

You would be correct as neither Google nor I have ever heard of it.

They turned it down for a very good reason: it is their prerogative to do so, being a sovereign nation, and not be dependant on foreigners.

It's bad economics. Spend billions researching nuclear technology or use your reputation as a bit of a dodgy country to get given a piece of technology decades out of your reach, that you can reverse engineer and replicate for a fraction of the reaserch cost, for free.

Iran wants to make nuclear weapons and I have no problem with that but I wish people would just be a little more honest.

Both oil and natural gas fired power plants are far cheaper to build. By far cheapr, I mean far cheaper. They have the fourth largest oil reserves in the world and the second largest gas reserves. The plants they are building are breeder reactors that are almost always used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

If you're going to defend their right to have these plants, fine, but be realistic about it and just say they have the right to build nuclear weapons.

I personally dont think that every country should have a sovereign right to nuclear weapons. In the US, we dont allow felons to have guns,because felons with guns are too dangerous. Why should the international community tolerate global nuclear blackmail from the equivelent "felon" countries.

I personally dont think that every country should have a sovereign right to nuclear weapons. In the US, we dont allow felons to have guns,because felons with guns are too dangerous. Why should the international community tolerate global nuclear blackmail from the equivelent "felon" countries.

I'd be careful with the whole 'felon' analogy. The uS has been breaking more international laws than the rest of the world combined recently.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/oil.htm

I was being really, really sarcastic. I even used the correct smiley.

I am convinced Iran has intentions to build nukes to threaten whoemever they care to and force us to play by their rules.

Powering homes and hospitals-not such a big concern to these people.

You would be correct as neither Google nor I have ever heard of it.

The third pillar of the NNPT is the one that governs that countries have "the inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and in that way enrich uranium and ask the IAEA for help. Should they wish to develop nuclear weapons, they can withdraw from the NNPT.

Both oil and natural gas fired power plants are far cheaper to build. By far cheapr, I mean far cheaper. They have the fourth largest oil reserves in the world and the second largest gas reserves. The plants they are building are breeder reactors that are almost always used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

If you're going to defend their right to have these plants, fine, but be realistic about it and just say they have the right to build nuclear weapons.

I agree. And lets not let them pretend they give a shit about the environment.

I dont want them to have glow in the dark yo-yos. let alone any capabilty of splitting atoms.

They turned it down for a very good reason: it is their prerogative to do so, being a sovereign nation, and not be dependant on foreigners.

But once they have the reactors already there, they aren't dependant at all. It's not like France and Germany will come in and take the reactors away. There's no good, rational reason to turn down the light water reactors, unless you want to make bombs. I mean, you could argue the "pride" angle, that they want to be able to say "look! We did it ourselves!" but I'd say that world stability is a bit more important than national arrogance.

If you're going to defend their right to have these plants, fine, but be realistic about it and just say they have the right to build nuclear weapons.

I think they do have that right.

I think they do have that right.

So does Isreal. Isreal also has the right to defend itself against a country that has repeatedly called for it to wiped off the map. :)

So does Isreal. Isreal also has the right to defend itself against a country that has repeatedly called for it to wiped off the map. :)

Sure. Israel can develop nukes - if it hasn't already - just as anyone else can.

In theory, anyway. The reality is the US tries to put a cork back in the genie bottle and play at being the genie. But history shows technology moves forward, not backward.

Edit: Of course, Iran and Israel are at peace, so if Israel starts "defending" itself by launching an offensive, I'm gonna call bullshit about that being 'defense.' But that's a separate issue from nuclear bomb rights. :)

So does Isreal. Isreal also has the right to defend itself against a country that has repeatedly called for it to wiped off the map. :)
Israel already has nuclear weapons, though.

So does Isreal. Isreal also has the right to defend itself against a country that has repeatedly called for it to wiped off the map. :)

As long as Israel doesn't decide on a pre-emptive nuclear strike. That'd be one hole it ain't gonna climb out of no matter how they spin it.

Sure. Israel can develop nukes - if it hasn't already - just as anyone else can.

In theory, anyway. The reality is the US tries to put a cork back in the genie bottle and play at being the genie. But history shows technology moves forward, not backward.

Whatever. There's ideology and then there's practicality. It was ideology that resulted in Iraq, for example. It was practicality that resulted in Detente.

Just remember that when it becomes irrefutible that Iran is actually building nuclear weapons and the country is turned to glass, that this was a triumph of ideology (each country's "right" to develop these weapons) over practicality (realizing that if Iran is prevented from developing them millions of their own people won't be vaporized). Isreal will nuke them in a red hot second before the first bomb is even assembled.

It's also our right to lobby for sanctions against them and for any other country to agree and stop doing business with them.

As long as Israel doesn't decide on a pre-emptive nuclear strike. That'd be one hole it ain't gonna climb out of no matter how they spin it.

Given the rhetoric from Iran, Isreal has the right to assume they'll "wipe them off the map" before they actually do. If they start actually producing bombs, something that's going to be hard to hide, Isreal will turn Iran into vapor.

Whatever. There's ideology and then there's practicality. It was ideology that resulted in Iraq, for example. It was practicality that resulted in Detente.

It's no more practical to try to prevent nuclear technological capacity from spreading than it is ideologically correct.

Just remember that when it becomes irrefutible that Iran is actually building nuclear weapons and the country is turned to glass, that this was a triumph of ideology (each country's "right" to develop these weapons) over practicality (realizing that if Iran is prevented from developing them millions of their own people won't be vaporized). Isreal will nuke them in a red hot second before the first bomb is even assembled.

Hmm, no. Having a right to develop weapons is not the same as having a right to nuke the shit out of someone, any more than having a right to own a gun is the same as having the right to commit murder.

The third pillar of the NNPT is the one that governs that countries have "the inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and in that way enrich uranium and ask the IAEA for help. Should they wish to develop nuclear weapons, they can withdraw from the NNPT.

And does the third pillar mention what the IAEA is supposed to do when they dont feel a country is using this info for peaceful purposes?

Correct. Iran in general has MONSTAH BALLS!

I'd just like to point out that this technology is now 60 years old. I think it's a little naive to think we can still prevent anyone else from figuring it out.

I'd just like to point out that this technology is now 60 years old. I think it's a little naive to think we can still prevent anyone else from figuring it out.

So far we have done a fairly decent although not perfect job of it. The only ones that have it now that i dont particularly like the idea of is N.K. and Pakistan so far.

Both oil and natural gas fired power plants are far cheaper to build. By far cheapr, I mean far cheaper. They have the fourth largest oil reserves in the world and the second largest gas reserves. The plants they are building are breeder reactors that are almost always used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

If you're going to defend their right to have these plants, fine, but be realistic about it and just say they have the right to build nuclear weapons.

Simple reasons. Firstly, if they get nuclear power they can power themselves off that and make shedloads of the oil and gas reserves as prices continue to rise. Secondly, how long are the reserves are going to last. I've heard figures like 2050 for all the World's oil reserves being bandied about, can't say I can verify them, but there seems to be a general consensus that it'll run out sometime during this century. They're thinking ahead.

Problem is, that the US have lost some credibility since Colin Powell did his little show at the Security Council about Iraq's WMD...

the rest of the world already thinks we're a joke. we're still waving around the big "#1" foam finger from way back when, when the only thing we might be #1 in is entertainment. whoop-de-doo.

So far we have done a fairly decent although not perfect job of it. The only ones that have it now that i dont particularly like the idea of is N.K. and Pakistan so far.

Really?!

India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, North Korea.... that's a lot that figured it out to be honest. (and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone)

They'll get it too. The rest of the world will now take part in helping this energy poor nation heat their homes. :rolleyes: They have every right, you know.

And before you know it, Iran will be wagging something big in our faces and we'll be forced to comply.

They probably won't get it actually. We still have veto power you know.

Really?!

India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, North Korea.... that's a lot that figured it out to be honest. (and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone)

China perhaps?

China perhaps?

Oh...yeah...them

<.< >.>

So far we have done a fairly decent although not perfect job of it. The only ones that have it now that i dont particularly like the idea of is N.K. and Pakistan so far.

It's still naive to think that we can forever hold back this technology. Hell, it's older than television.

Simple reasons... Firstly, if they get nuclear power they can power themselves off that and make shedloads of the oil and gas reserves as prices continue to rise. Secondly, how long are the reserves are going to last. I've heard figures like 2050 for all the World's oil reserves being bandied about, can't say I can verify them, but there seems to be a general consensus that it'll run out sometime during this century. They're thinking ahead.

*This message has been sponsored by The Iranian Propaganda Council.

---Our Motto: We dont have jobs or paved roads or relaible water and sewers or electricity everyday but by Allah we have the possible problems of 50 years from now SOLVED!-------

*This message has been sponsored by The Iranian Government.

---Our Motto: We dont have jobs or paved roads or electricity everyday but by Allah we have the possible problems of 50 years from now SOLVED!-------

What arrogance. Is that what you really think of Iran?

Simple reasons. Firstly, if they get nuclear power they can power themselves off that and make shedloads of the oil and gas reserves as prices continue to rise. Secondly, how long are the reserves are going to last. I've heard figures like 2050 for all the World's oil reserves being bandied about, can't say I can verify them, but there seems to be a general consensus that it'll run out sometime during this century. They're thinking ahead.

No they won't. They'll just have to pour more profits back into the building and maintenance of the plants. Sell oil and gas, take money from oil and gas and build expensive nuclear and use expensive fuel.

Or, use domestic reserves and build cheap plants. Lose money from sales, but save much more because you're not running an expensive plant.

Once you balance the costs of building nuclear plants or building gas plants the nuclear routs is more expensive.

Given the rhetoric from Iran, Isreal has the right to assume they'll "wipe them off the map" before they actually do. If they start actually producing bombs, something that's going to be hard to hide, Isreal will turn Iran into vapor.

Pretty much the same kind of male organ waving that occured during the Cold War, only less polite about it. Back then, the principles of MAD applied. If Israel gets the go ahead to start using nukes pre-emptively and not fall under the MAD scenario, or be subjected to hideous penalties, that'd be the end of it as far as non-use of nuclear weapons go by the other powers.

You can't have one person using nuclear weapons aggressively without penalty without generating huge amounts of emnity that's going to bite you in the ass. Bye bye Tel Aviv.

Really?!

India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, North Korea.... that's a lot that figured it out to be honest. (and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone)
Actually, the South Africans have decommisioned their weapons :)

Really?!

India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, North Korea.... that's a lot that figured it out to be honest. (and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone)

I think tehre are 500 or so countries in the world. That's not many. In anycase, saying there's no way to put teh genie back in teh bottle is pure opinion. You have no way of knowing what is or isn't possible when it comes to trying to do something that has never happened before. Even if you're right, doesn't mean we shouldn't make every possible effort to contain the spread of nuclear weapons. Not that it really matters. Iran will be smoke before they build their first bomb anyway. That'll just suck for the world energy markets.

Actually, the South Africans have decommisioned their weapons :)

Oh I know, its just they 'discovered' the 'well kept secret' of nuclear tech. :rolleyes:

Actually, the South Africans have decommisioned their weapons :)

And Russia is theirs as well. Most of what they have left probably doesn't even work anymore.

And Russia is theirs as well. Most of what they have left probably doesn't even work anymore.

In the case of Russia, however, "decommissioned" just means they're not actively targetting anything and aren't ready to be fired. If Russia had reason to they could recommission the vast majority of their nuclear arsenal in minutes. South Africa actually went ahead and completely dismantled their entire nuclear research program.

And Russia is theirs as well. Most of what they have left probably doesn't even work anymore.
They're in the middle of creating another, laser-proof generation of missiles.

The Russians are going to be a nuclear power for a LOOOOONG time yet methinks.

And Russia is theirs as well. Most of what they have left probably doesn't even work anymore.

Try looking up Topol-M type Ballistic Missile. The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces are probably the only department in the Russian armed forces that still recieves big chunks of funding. Sure, they've decommissioned the older missiles and warheads, but that doesn't mean much when they've still got an active stockpile numbering in the 1000s IIRC.

In anycase, saying there's no way to put teh genie back in teh bottle is pure opinion. You have no way of knowing what is or isn't possible when it comes to trying to do something that has never happened before.

Attempting to control and monopolize a technology HAS been done before, so this "pure opinion" is based on historical precedent. The Hittites for example may have once had a monopoly on forging iron, and certainly they didn't want their enemies to ever get that Top Secret WMD either.

I think we should just bomb their enrichment facility and be done with it.

I think we should just bomb their enrichment facility and be done with it.
I think that's very, very small minded myself.

Try looking up Topol-M type Ballistic Missile. The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces are probably the only department in the Russian armed forces that still recieves big chunks of funding. Sure, they've decommissioned the older missiles and warheads, but that doesn't mean much when they've still got an active stockpile numbering in the 1000s IIRC.

I didn't say they disbanded their military. I said they are disbanding their nuclear arsenal. We know this because we are helping them do it and dispose of the waste and because there are very strong verification measures in place.

No they won't. They'll just have to pour more profits back into the building and maintenance of the plants. Sell oil and gas, take money from oil and gas and build expensive nuclear and use expensive fuel.

Or, use domestic reserves and build cheap plants. Lose money from sales, but save much more because you're not running an expensive plant.

Once you balance the costs of building nuclear plants or building gas plants the nuclear routs is more expensive.

Can't argue with you since I don't have any figures, but I'd expect that amount of oil and natural gas to be able to support a nuclear programme, especially as oil prices rise. And like I said, this way they aren't totally screwed when the oil runs out.

Personally I think they mainly want it for prestige and power. I think they probably do want nuclear weapons, but there's no proof yet (and I'd say they also want nuclear energy). Also, can anyone provide a cast iron reason why Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. One that doesn't involve "coz tehy're evil!!11". The USA has them and has used them and recently invaded countries (ditto for Britain on invasions), Israel has them and uses them for threats and influence.

[Originally Posted by Intestinal fluids View Post
*This message has been sponsored by The Iranian Government.

---Our Motto: We dont have jobs or paved roads or electricity everyday but by Allah we have the possible problems of 50 years from now SOLVED!-------

What arrogance. Is that what you really think of Iran?

Well lets see, a simple Google of Iranian unemployment reads 14-15% unemployment rate in Iran and words on the very first search page regarding the issue included "unemployment crisis" "National Threat"
Another simple Google search specifically a wikipedia entry and you would discover that 34% of Irans roads are unpaved. I stopped there, i assure you i could come up with pages of equal or greater deficiencies but i think you get my point. And ALL of them are more important than a percieved notion that they are doing this for some 50 year in the future energy benefit. I call complete BS.

I didn't say they disbanded their military. I said they are disbanding their nuclear arsenal. We know this because we are helping them do it and dispose of the waste and because there are very strong verification measures in place.

Some, not all. They don't need enough to irradiate the planet some 200 times over. Just once is enough. Otherwise, all that money they've been putting into missile R&D is a big fat waste.

You didn't REALLY think Russia would do away with its nuclear stockpile did you? They're just getting rid of the excess.

Really?!

India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, North Korea.... that's a lot that figured it out to be honest. (and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone)

Let's not forget Russia, China, Britain, and France.

And France just tested this very sexy ICBM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_SLBM.

Oh, right, just gonna add a bit: I'm sure Iran wants nuclear weapns, and I could really care less. If Israel has them, why can't Iran? I do not think Iran is stupid enough to actually use them on anyone, unless, of course, someone else gets the brilliant idea of nuking them.

Pretty much the same kind of male organ waving that occured during the Cold War, only less polite about it. Back then, the principles of MAD applied. If Israel gets the go ahead to start using nukes pre-emptively and not fall under the MAD scenario, or be subjected to hideous penalties, that'd be the end of it as far as non-use of nuclear weapons go by the other powers.

You can't have one person using nuclear weapons aggressively without penalty without generating huge amounts of emnity that's going to bite you in the ass. Bye bye Tel Aviv.

Isreal never threatened Iran with the exception of saying they will not allow them to have nukes. I've never seen the Isreali premier on TV saying that Iran will be wiped off the map. In any case, I don't care. I'm jst stating the truth about what will happen in practical reality all ideology aside. If Iran continues to wave their middle finger and rush to buld nukes Isreal will nuke them at some point and, no, no one will nuke them back. All you have is millions of dead Iranians and a bunch of people pissed off at Isreal who will do nothing about it except go to the UN. You'll also have a world wide energy crisis that could result in hundreds of millions of deaths.

Or we could try to stop them from building nukes. That's not about what's right or wrong, it's just what's practical.

Well lets see, a simple Google of Iranian unemployment reads 14-15% unemployment rate in Iran and words on the very first search page regarding the issue included "unemployment crisis" "National Threat"
14% unemployment =/= 'NO JOBS'

Another simple Google search specifically a wikipedia entry and you would discover that 34% of Irans roads are unpaved.
34% =/= ALL ROADS. And Wiki for statistics? I should have known...:rolleyes:

I stopped there, i assure you i could come up with pages of equal or greater deficiencies but i think you get my point. And ALL of them are more important than a percieved notion that they are doing this for some 50 year in the future energy benefit. I call complete BS.

Oh no please, continue with your hyperbolic line of claptrap bullshit. I could do with a laugh.

Some, not all. They don't need enough to irradiate the planet some 200 times over. Just once is enough. Otherwise, all that money they've been putting into missile R&D is a big fat waste.

You didn't REALLY think Russia would do away with its nuclear stockpile did you? They're just getting rid of the excess.

Not according to them, the treaties, our scientists...

Nuclear weapons don't last that long. We've got US and UN scientists all over Russia and their plants, their decommisioning centers, etc... If they were refueling their warheads there'd be no way to hide it. Truth is, Russia is very practical and nuclear weapons cost a lot and they're more interested in economic power right now. Of course, if Iran develops nuclear weapons...

Isreal never threatened Iran with the exception of saying they will not allow them to have nukes. I've never seen the Isreali premier on TV saying that Iran will be wiped off the map. In any case, I don't care.
They did make the counter threat "Iran should remember that it too can be wiped off the map" or something to that effect.


I'm jst stating the truth about what will happen in practical reality all ideology aside. If Iran continues to wave their middle finger and rush to buld nukes Isreal will nuke them at some point and, no, no one will nuke them back. All you have is millions of dead Iranians and a bunch of people pissed off at Isreal who will do nothing about it except go to the UN. You'll also have a world wide energy crisis that could result in hundreds of millions of deaths.

Or we could try to stop them from building nukes. That's not about what's right or wrong, it's just what's practical.
I'm extremely doubtful as to whether Israel'll nuke them. Bomb the facillity quite probably, but not nuke them. And given China's affiliations with Iran I'd say they are a prime candidate for nuking them back. But I think MAD will prevail.

They did make the counter threat "Iran should remember that it too can be wiped off the map" or something to that effect.


I'm extremely doubtful as to whether Israel'll nuke them. Bomb the facillity quite probably, but not nuke them. And given China's affiliations with Iran I'd say they are a prime candidate for nuking them back. But I think MAD will prevail.

China's not goimg to nuke Isreal. Isreal could turn allof Iran into glass and China's still not going to nuke them. China's not going to9 nuke anyone that they don't feel directly threatened by. There not fanatics.

14% unemployment =/= 'NO JOBS'

I assure you, if the unemployment rate hit 14% in the USA, there would be nothing but stories about no jobs in the Nations newspapers on pages 1,2,3,4,5 and 6


34% =/= ALL ROADS. And Wiki for statistics? I should have known...:rolleyes:

Besides rolling your eyes do you have any reason to dispute this figure? Can you provide a more accurate one?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not take my words literally, No jobs doesnt mean that out of a country of 40 million there wasnt a single job available in the entire country nor a single paved road. Yet you somehow choose to seemly interpret it this way. Why is this? Surely we both deserve some credit as to the fact that neigher of us believes this to be true so why do you emphesize it?

I assure you, if the unemployment rate hit 14% in the USA, there would be nothing but stories about no jobs on pages 1,2,3,4,5 and 6
Fantastic. Hyperbole all round then. Because ALL Americans are fat, ignorant, redneck, gun toting morons, right?




Besides rolling your eyes do you have any reason to dispute this figure?
Yes.

It's Wiki.

Fantastic. Hyperbole all round then. Because ALL Americans are fat, ignorant, redneck, gun toting morons, right?




Yes.

It's Wiki.

Ok and can you provide another figure disagreeing with it? Im not interested in Hyperbole. So let me ask a straight out question and please answer it straight out.

When i said no jobs and referred to a 14% unemploymen rate, what exactly made you complain? I went out of my way to describe the impact of that 14% with adjectives from articles describing what a huge problem it was. Did you think i thought no jobs REALLY meant 100% unemployment and not one person worked in the entire country of Iran? If not then why make a snooty post pointing out this irrelevant discrepancy.Same for the roads. Did you think when i said they have no paved roads that i REALLY meant that 100% of the roads are made from dirt? Or do you think its slightly more likely that i was referring to a PROBLEM with the % of paved roads?

If Iran continues to wave their middle finger and rush to buld nukes Isreal will nuke them at some point and, no, no one will nuke them back.

From a realpolitik viewpoint? No. An unprovoked strike on that magnitude will certainly draw attention from both China and Russia, countries with more than sufficient nuclear force to squish Israel like a bug if they chose to. Not that Israel has that much land mass to nuke anyway, but that's beside the point.

Both China and Russia have pretty extensive energy deals with Iran IIRC, and suddenly destroying it at a level like that is certain to draw retaliation in one form or another.

It would take a very stupid leadership in Israel to think that a nuclear strike without repurcussions would be possible.

Not according to them, the treaties, our scientists...

You mean START-3? Or is it 4 now? The same one that the US was supposed to comply with? The one which has stated goals in reduction that are a long way away from being reached? Either way, the goals of those treaties are simply meant to reduce the nuclear stockpile, not remove it entirely.


Nuclear weapons don't last that long. We've got US and UN scientists all over Russia and their plants, their decommisioning centers, etc

All of them? I find that hard to believe. Russia giving up it's nuclear stockpile entirely would be like cutting off it's knees. You DON'T give up strategic resources like that entirely unless you've got something better up your sleeve.


Truth is, Russia is very practical and nuclear weapons cost a lot and they're more interested in economic power right now.

Then why on earth are they developing spanking brand new ballistic missiles which are only worth the money when equipped with nuclear warheads? The days of MIRVs and thousand missile launches are over with the Topol-M, but it's still an oversized firecracker without a nuclear warhead. And no matter what treaties there are in effect, Russian leadership isn't so stupid as to build bigass hideously expensive missiles that fly empty.

I support Iran's decision, no legitimate government would be foolish enough to ever turn nukes on their neighbours (again...). The looming threat of MAD assures this.

I believe that nuclear weapons research should definitely be pursued by any nation capable of it. If they have the capability, then they have the responsibility to refine this technology as much as possible. Nuclear weapons are a great source of power and can be used for such purposes as planetary defense (Meteorite deflection), or could even be used in extra-terrestrial asteroid mining or as propulsion for space vehicles.

Just because something can be used as a weapon, doesn't mean it has to be...

IMHO, The more superpowers that are out there, the better. They will keep each other in check. No one nation should have a monopoly over power or technology.

I doubt any Israeli responce will involve nuclear weapons.I suspect conventional weapons will suffice despite thier limitations. You cruisemissle a place long enough and despite the fact that its bunkered and buried, you can disrupt operations enough to make delicate nuclear processes nearly impossible to carry out. Hell,doing thinks like bombing the scientists parking lots where they park thier cars to go to work at thier nuclear plant can make people have second thoughts about what they are doing. You can keep burying the entrances and exits to the facilities. You can keep disrupting its electrical and water supplies. There are a million conventional weapon targets that can indirectly as well as directly disrupt thier Nuclear plans if a country like Israel has the will and proper intelligence to do it.

Really?!

India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, North Korea.... that's a lot that figured it out to be honest. (and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone)
I dont see anything wrong with India, Zuid-Afrika, Israel or China having nukes
Oh...yeah...them

<.< >.>

Actually, the South Africans have decommisioned their weapons :)
Yes, the Israeli and Zuid-Afrika worked together on a "top secret" joint nuclear weapons progrom, but ZA decided to get rid of them. Good thing too, as ZA isnt exactly "stable" anymore.

You mean START-3? Or is it 4 now? The same one that the US was supposed to comply with? The one which has stated goals in reduction that are a long way away from being reached? Either way, the goals of those treaties are simply meant to reduce the nuclear stockpile, not remove it entirely.


To my knowledge, the US is totally compliant on all of their nuclear treaties - the last one being the Medium-Range Missile ban. The only one we're behind on is the Chemical Weapons Ban, because it's taking longer than we thought to run the gunk through our high temperature incinerators.