PDA

View Full Version : Iran's Nukes



Pages : [1] 2

pete
17/01/2006, 3:02 PM
Why are Iran not allowed have nukes & other non-super powers have added them in the last decade?

What advantage is there for Iran to stay within the International Atomic Energy Agency?

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4619828.stm)

Risteard
17/01/2006, 3:16 PM
Why are Iran not allowed have nukes & other non-super powers have added them in the last decade?
Because Ahmadenijad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's a nutcase agressor, whereas Sharon and Bush carry out agressive military action instead of just preaching hatred.

finlma
17/01/2006, 4:34 PM
If Iran agrees to Russia's proposal of having the uranium enriched outside the country then they should be allowed to use Nuclear energy as many other countries are.

Israel should never have been permitted to create the bomb but France stupidly gave them the recipe.

pete
17/01/2006, 5:41 PM
Why doesn't Iran just leave the International Atomic Energy Agency so no inspections? Israel is not a member & has nukes for years (US gave them the recipe). Are India & Pakistan members?

I don't see the Iranian Presidents any different than Bushes "Axis of Evil" speeches when it comes to threats - each is surely courting the vote of their own people.

Iran surely has also seen that the US threats North Korea but won't act on any of it as kows they have "the bomb" & probably wouldn't mind such an insurance policy itself.

dcfcsteve
17/01/2006, 6:59 PM
Why are Iran not allowed have nukes & other non-super powers have added them in the last decade?

What advantage is there for Iran to stay within the International Atomic Energy Agency?

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4619828.stm)

In fairness, everyone knows the answer to this themselves.

It is double-standards, but the bottom line is that Iran is a borderline nut-job state and would be a real liability with such a powerful weapon. They certainly didn't help their case by saying they wanted to see a neighbouring country wiped off the face of the earth either - nukes would give them the ability to do exactly that. Ahmadinejad played right into the 'no' camp's hands by saying that - not smart.

Personally speaking, I'd rather not see Iran having Nuclear weapons. I'd rarther no-one did in fact - but I'd particularly ratehr Iran didn't have them, as I just wouldn't trust them with it. At least Israel is an elected parliamentary democracy (if you want to disagree, do so on the Sharon thread or start a new one), and is highly unlikely to use nuclear bombs except as a last resort in self-defence.

pete
17/01/2006, 7:09 PM
I thought Iran was a democracy if not exactely like Western versions?

btw if i was leader of Iran i'd ensure i developed nukes as would ensure never attacked by Western power - its working well for North Korea.

ken foree
17/01/2006, 9:01 PM
i think at least part of the u.s. reasoning for all the saber-rattling on iranian nukes (leaving aside elephant-in-the-room israel for a moment) is that iran are launching their own oil bourse which will be pegged to the euro. washington not likee

Bald Student
17/01/2006, 11:51 PM
There is a double standard here. India and Pakistan were on the brink of war not long ago and managed to both develope nukes without too much hassle (suspiciously at the same time too). The Indian foreign minister's comment, "We can afford to loose 25 million people, can Pakistan?" was not that different from Iran's current presedent. The case is further not helped by the law in the area being a complete ass. Iranians are not stupid and can see hypocracy for what it is.

The bottom line though is that Mad Mullahs with nukes is not a good thing.

hamish
18/01/2006, 12:32 AM
i think at least part of the u.s. reasoning for all the saber-rattling on iranian nukes (leaving aside elephant-in-the-room israel for a moment) is that iran are launching their own oil bourse which will be pegged to the euro. washington not likee

Yeah, Ken, saw an article (Guardian I think) about Saddam wishing to link his oil with the Euro - much to the consternation of the US.

The US may not be getting any oil from Iran but if this situation intensifies, then oil prices may soar and effect the US economy anyway.
Sadly, the Mullahs have stymied attempts in Iran to have a more representative democracy. It gives that President free reign to blather all that disgusting nonsense about the holocaust and Israel.
I notice too, that there has been a crackdown lately in Tehran on couples holding hands, on what women wear etc etc etc etc.
Sad fact is, most young Iranians are well disposed towards the West and the President's promise to use oil revenue to improve his people's lot has not materialised.
Putting the screws on Iran right now will only drive every Iranian into the hands of Mullah organ-grinders and their monkeys - it'll develop a kind of bunker mentality.

Needless to say, the present US regime, as we all know, is reknowned for it's tact and diplomacy:rolleyes: and will do everything in its power to make things worse.

A few months ago, Jack Straw emphasised that a miltary option was not on the table regarding Iran. Let's hope that he keeps his hands on his balls and maintains his nerve and, with the other Western nations, tell the US and Israel that if they attack Iran (bunker busters at nuclear sites etc) they're on their own.

dcfcsteve
18/01/2006, 12:35 AM
I thought Iran was a democracy if not exactely like Western versions?

btw if i was leader of Iran i'd ensure i developed nukes as would ensure never attacked by Western power - its working well for North Korea.

Iran is a democracy in-so-far as the Model T Ford came in a range of colours...

So who exactly would North Korea launch a nuclear strike against, in all reality ? Don't say South Korea, as that would be like Donegal attacking Tyrone. They may as well just fire the things at themselves.....

Nuclear bombs are not designed to be fired - the fact that they've been around for 50 odd years proves this. They are designed for political brinkmanship - they are a sabre to rattle in negotiations to push tour point and/or balance against someone elses power. Any sensible admninistration knows that as soon as they fire a nuclear weapon they would get the same/more back, so it's a zero sum game. I can think of no other weapon that has been been created, proven and distributed, yet remained unused after over half a century. If Japan had the Atomic bomb in 1945, there's no way the Americans would have used it on them.

The probelm would therefore be if nukes ended-up in the hands of admninistrations who WEREN'T driven by brinkmanship and common sense - who didn't believe or care if they were fired back in response. Iran is just such an administration - or is in danger of becoming one...

hamish
18/01/2006, 3:22 AM
The probelm would therefore be if nukes ended-up in the hands of admninistrations who WEREN'T driven by brinkmanship and common sense - who didn't believe or care if they were fired back in response. Iran is just such an administration - or is in danger of becoming one...

Yeah Steve, THAT is the part that worries me.

I feel also that the London/Madrid type terror attacks would multiply if Iran really got attacked, so to speak, and all hopes of dialogue between the Arab and/or Islamic world ended.

Very worrying situation developing.

Listening to the BS from the neo-cons (Bill Kristol and co - who often print/say what the Bushies are thinking) are putting forth at the moment - they seem to feel that some sort of attacks using bunker busters at the Iranian nuclear sites might be attempted. without too much "feedback" from the Islamic world. Insane idea.

They'll never learn, will they??:(

Student Mullet
18/01/2006, 5:00 AM
I think North Korea's main beef is with Japan who occupied them and AFAIR did nasty things to their civilian population during the second world war.

The case of North Korea proves your point, Steve, about Nukes not being designed for use. It's hard to imagine a government being much more disfunctional than North Korea's and even they have no intention of using their nukes as anything other than a deterrand and bargaining chip.

pete
18/01/2006, 10:20 AM
I think North Korea's main beef is with Japan who occupied them and AFAIR did nasty things to their civilian population during the second world war.


Yup. Japan no.1 target for NK. I think they tested a missile some years ago that could make the Japnese coast too. I'm sure there are also suggestions that NK missiles could possibly reach the US but that could be just US propaganda.

finlma
18/01/2006, 10:46 AM
(US gave them the recipe).

Incorrect Pete - it was France. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)

pete
18/01/2006, 11:19 AM
Incorrect Pete - it was France. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)

But surely they only build reactors for them for electricity generation? I thought the CIA helped them with their bomb making program?

If used the same logic then Russia are giving Iran the recipie this time as building reactors for them.

Anyway I don't see why Iran doesn't just pull out of the inspections as Israel has never allowed inspections & not done them any harm.

John83
18/01/2006, 2:34 PM
Iran is a democracy in-so-far as the Model T Ford came in a range of colours...
It came in four, according to QI.

hamish
18/01/2006, 5:41 PM
Incorrect Pete - it was France. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)

Reading about this a week ago in The Guardian. Britain also was involved - unknown to the US and when the latter found out out, much to their annoyance then, believe it or not.

Full version
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4515586.stm

Slightly Edited version
UK 'cover-up' on Israel's nukes

We were party to the development of a nuclear facility in Israel that has been used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons
Jeremy Corbyn
Britain is being accused of trying to cover up its role in helping Israel develop its nuclear weapons programme.
In August, Newsnight revealed that more than 40 years ago, Britain sold heavy water, a key substance, to Israel.
MPs now allege that minister Kim Howells tried to mislead the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over Britain's role.
The shipments involved heavy water - a key element in producing plutonium - which the UK had originally bought from Norway.
Officially it was sold back to a Norwegian state firm called Noratom. But Britain knew Noratom would immediately sell 20 tons of the heavy water to Israel, and it was even collected directly from a British port by Israeli ships.
It's thought that today Israel possesses more than hundred nuclear weapons.
No cover-up
After Newsnight's original broadcast, the Arab League wrote to the IAEA seeking a full investigation.
But Foreign Office minister Kim Howells told Mohamed ElBaradei that Britain did not sell the material to Israel.
"The UK was not in fact a party to the sale of heavy water to Israel," he wrote, "but did negotiate the sale back to Norway of surplus heavy water."
Britain then circulated that response to every IAEA member government
"It's simply untrue - right back to the late 1950s we were a party to the transfer of nuclear technology to Israel," he said.
"We were party to the development of a nuclear facility in Israel that could, and has, been used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons; Norway was always a smokescreen."
Newsnight's initial report last August was based on documents unearthed in the British National Archive, and shocked people around the world.
In Washington President Kennedy's former Defence Secretary Robert MacNamara, who tried to stop Israel going nuclear, told Newsnight: "The fact Israel was trying to develop a nuclear bomb should not have come as a surprise, but that Britain should have supplied it with heavy water was indeed a surprise to me."
Newsnight has tracked down Donald Cape, one of the Foreign Office officials involved in deciding that British heavy water should be shipped to Israel.
In September 1958 Cape received a letter in which the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) admitted: "It could be argued that the Israelis will receive the heavy water by reason of our reselling it to Noratom; that therefore we are parties to the supply to Israel."
Mr Cape agrees with Kim Howells' interpretation, however, and insists the heavy water was sold to Norway.
It is "absolute nonsense", he says, to suggest Norway's involvement was a "sham" and that the real sale was from Britain to Israel.
But Newsnight has also obtained Israel's contract with the Norwegian firm Noratom. It says Noratom would provide heavy water from the UKAEA for Israel - delivered in Britain to Israel.
Noratom would take a commission of two per cent on the four million dollar deal; its responsibility would be "limited" to that of "consultant".
Donald Cape says he and his colleagues did not tell ministers about the transaction because there was no reason for either Britain or America to suspect what Israel was up to. :rolleyes:
But confidential letters obtained by Newsnight through a Freedom of Information request, written two months before the first delivery was collected by Israel, suggest there were already suspicions about Israel's intentions.
The documents show the Foreign Office knew Israel had secretly tried to buy uranium from South Africa - without safeguards.
One letter quotes secret CIA reports from 1957 and 1958, which took the view: "The Israelis must be expected to try and establish a nuclear weapons programme as soon as the means were available to them."
The man who wrote these Foreign Office letters was Donald Cape himself. :D
When the existence of the Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona was revealed to the world in December 1960, Britain's spymasters made an assessment of Israeli capabilities.
In the last few days, Newsnight has obtained the top secret 'UK eyes only' report - previously only seen by the bosses of intelligence bodies such as MI6, MI5 and GCHQ.
These minutes are really the only occasion on which the British Government has ever released a detailed assessment of Israel's nuclear weapons programme, and they show just how important Britain's 20 tons of heavy water were to that programme.
According to the Joint Intelligence Assessment, it meant that the Dimona reactor would be able to make enough plutonium to build up to six atom bombs a year.
The document concludes: "It has been, and remains our opinion, that Israel wanted an independent supply of plutonium so as to be in a position to make nuclear weapons if she wished."
Yet we also know that the Foreign Office imposed no restrictions on what the heavy water would be used for.
Donald Cape wrote that it would be "over zealous" to impose safeguards on Norway or Israel. And he agreed to keep the deal secret even from the US, writing that: "I would prefer not to tell the Americans."
"The material went from [the UKAEA at] Harwell direct to a British port, to Israeli ships, and was then taken to Israel.
"This assertion that somehow we weren't party to the action simply does not stand up when you analyse the facts

dcfcsteve
18/01/2006, 10:53 PM
It came in four, according to QI.

Which ones - black, black, black and err..... black......?

Bald Student
18/01/2006, 11:04 PM
Which ones - black, black, black and err..... black......?Brown.
http://www.stigonline.com/Ford.jpg

dcfcsteve
18/01/2006, 11:11 PM
Brown.
http://www.stigonline.com/Ford.jpg

"The early Model Ts actually did come in a variety of colors, but beginning in 1914 and for the next eleven years, the Model T would be sold in only one color: black. The main reason for this was the black enamel used dried more quickly than other paints and therefore sped up production. Consumers were not offered a choice of colors again until 1926, due in part to slumping sales".

Source : http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1908/specs.html

That's good enough for me....

hamish
18/01/2006, 11:47 PM
"The early Model Ts actually did come in a variety of colors, but beginning in 1914 and for the next eleven years, the Model T would be sold in only one color: black. The main reason for this was the black enamel used dried more quickly than other paints and therefore sped up production. Consumers were not offered a choice of colors again until 1926, due in part to slumping sales".

Source : http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1908/specs.html

That's good enough for me....

LOL Anorak alert!!!!:eek::p :D

dcfcsteve
19/01/2006, 10:31 AM
LOL Anorak alert!!!!:p :D

You should've known the answer to that one yourself SirHamish !

Didn't you used to rip along the Beeslow Rd in one in your youth.....? :p

hamish
19/01/2006, 8:41 PM
You should've known the answer to that one yourself SirHamish !

Didn't you used to rip along the Beeslow Rd in one in your youth.....?

Nah, useless information is allright for pub quizzes.;)

A ROAD in Beeslow.........where..........where???LOL:D Really enjoyed that reposte though.:D Do remember a bloke here (when I was a kid) having a car with those flat bits beside the doors you could stand on. Y'know the ones you'd see in old gangster movies.

Found this in Google

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

This is from The Foundation for Middle East Peace

http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol15/no6/01_sharons_west_bank_policy_leaves_little_for_the_ pa.html

Hamish

hamish
20/01/2006, 3:38 PM
Here's more info on the Iranian President from The Observer

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,1686737,00.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1686652,00.html

mypost
21/01/2006, 4:54 AM
I feel also that the London/Madrid type terror attacks would multiply if Iran really got attacked. Very worrying situation developing.

Maybe I'm naive, but i genuinely believe that the Iranians are developing their nuclear resources for purely civilian purposes, but with all the history and distrust between America and Iran, I feel conflict is brewing, and in the current climate, America doesn't need many reasons to conduct military operations in other countries, so this issue could be used as a flag of convenience to justify conflict against Iran. If the Europeans join up with the Americans, we would all be in grave danger of getting caught up in the crossfire, because the war won't be just restricted to Iranian territory. It will make Iraq look a picnic in comparison.

dcfcsteve
21/01/2006, 2:14 PM
Maybe I'm naive, but i genuinely believe that the Iranians are developing their nuclear resources for purely civilian purposes, but with all the history and distrust between America and Iran, I feel conflict is brewing, and in the current climate, America doesn't need many reasons to conduct military operations in other countries, so this issue could be used as a flag of convenience to justify conflict against Iran. If the Europeans join up with the Americans, we would all be in grave danger of getting caught up in the crossfire, because the war won't be just restricted to Iranian territory. It will make Iraq look a picnic in comparison.

You may well be right. But given Iran's statement that it wants the State of Israel wiped off the face of the earth - does it make sense to then allow them carte blanche to play with precisely the type of technlogy that would enable them to do this ? If a small child wants to use a pair of scissors - chances are they'll do so without any harm. But because the risk of harm is still there, that's why they have to do so supervised (or with special 'neutered' plastic scissors, to reduce the likelihood of harm).

It's the same with Iran. They've been offered the opportunity to have the uranium required for nuclear fuel supplied to them directly by Russia. This would enable them to use it as a power source, but prevent them from accessing uranium in a 'weapon's grade' strength (the nuclear equivalent of giving a kid plastic scissors). So what is wrong with that proposed solution, if their intent is genuine ?

Student Mullet
22/01/2006, 3:29 AM
They've been offered the opportunity to have the uranium required for nuclear fuel supplied to them directly by Russia. ... So what is wrong with that proposed solution, if their intent is genuine ?It places Iran dependant on Russia for future energy supplies. In a world where energy is becoming more scarse it is not a serious proposal.

hamish
23/01/2006, 1:01 AM
Maybe I'm naive, but i genuinely believe that the Iranians are developing their nuclear resources for purely civilian purposes, but with all the history and distrust between America and Iran, I feel conflict is brewing, and in the current climate, America doesn't need many reasons to conduct military operations in other countries, so this issue could be used as a flag of convenience to justify conflict against Iran. If the Europeans join up with the Americans, we would all be in grave danger of getting caught up in the crossfire, because the war won't be just restricted to Iranian territory. It will make Iraq look a picnic in comparison.

Fine summing up mypost. Iran is floating on a lake of oil, as they say so why the need for nuclear power?? They claim that when the oil runs out they'll have this "alternative" energy.
As to whether they want it for energy only I honestly don't know, to tell you the truth but maybe they're doing a North Korea and telling the US to lay off.

I see Israel today, too, has made it rather clear they won't let them do it.

This situation is rolling out of control I think and will need some super-diplomacy to calm things down.

dcfcsteve
23/01/2006, 1:19 AM
It places Iran dependant on Russia for future energy supplies. In a world where energy is becoming more scarse it is not a serious proposal.

What - you mean like half the rest of the Western world is already dependent upon Russia for its future oil and gas supplies ?!?! Do you read the papers......? :rolleyes:

Regardless - it's Hobson's choice for Iran. Take it from Russia or do without, and risk getting in serious sh!t with the international community. In that light, the Russian offer is a phenomenally serious proposal.....

Macy
23/01/2006, 11:24 AM
I don't doubt that Iran wants to develop nukes. As has been said, works keeping North Korea safe from attack.

I'd much rather no countries had nukes, but the hypocracy of those that do beggars belief. I doubt we'd be threatened with sanctions if we developed nuclear power stations (rather than rely on nuclear power from the UK), so why should Iran? Just because we don't like their elected leader*

*may not be the most democratic election, but still a better election than Pakistan, Saudi etc etc that are okay with the west.

Terry
23/01/2006, 2:47 PM
Iran Has an 'Inalienable
Right' To Nuclear Energy

By Enver Masud
The Wisdom fund
1-19-5

Iran has an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes such as the production of electric energy, and the enrichment of uranium for its nuclear reactors. Could it be that Iran's plan for an oil exchange trading in Euros is the real issue? Or is it Israel? Article IV of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force on March 5, 1970, states:

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world. Thus, not only does Iran have an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for electricity, the NPT obligates the nuclear powers to "further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Iran has gone beyond its obligations under the NPT to assure others of it's peaceful intentions.

According to Dr. Gordon Prather, a nuclear physicist who was the top scientist for the army in the Reagan years, in December, 2003, Iran had signed an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement and had volunteered to cooperate with the IAEA - pending ratification by the Iranian Parliament - as if the Additional Protocol were actually "in force." Iran also offered, says Dr. Prather, "to voluntarily forego a complete fuel cycle . . . if the Europeans would get the United States to reverse the campaign of denial, obstruction, intervention, and misinformation." Iran had already offered on March 23, 2005 a package of "objective guarantees" (developed by an international panel of experts) that met most of the demands later made by the conservative, Washington based Heritage foundation says Dr. Prather. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no "smoking gun" in Iran that would indicate a nuclear weapons program, says Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA. Thirty years ago, Iran developing a nuclear capacity "caused no problems for the Americans because, at that time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the throne with American help", says Tony Benn, Britain's secretary of state for energy from 1975-79.

With world oil production approaching a peak it makes sense for Iran to look toward alternative means for generating electricity, and to reserve its oil supply for other purposes including increasing revenues from the export of the additional oil not used for electricity production. A major reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S. military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency." Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism," writes William R. Clark the author Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar.

According to Toni Straka, a Vienna, Austria-based financial analyst who runs a blog, The Prudent Investor, Iran's "proposal to set up a petroleum bourse was first voiced in Iran's development plan for 2000-2005. . . . Cheaper nuclear energy and increases in oil exports from the current level of roughly 2.5 million barrels a day will result in a profitable equation for Iran. "Only one major actor stands to lose from a change in the current status quo: the US" says Toni Straka, "which with less than 5% of the global population, consumes roughly one third of global oil production." "There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled, and the complete silence over Israel's huge nuclear armoury," says Tony Benn. Yes, given the technology and knowledge Iran could develop a nuclear weapon. But "under the current regime, there is nothing illicit for a non-nuclear state to conduct uranium-enriching activities . . . or even to possess military-grade nuclear material," says ElBaradei. Thirty-five to forty countries possess this capability. Israel - not a signatory to the NPT - has had this capability for years, is believed to have several hundred nuclear bombs, the missiles to deliver them to Iran, and it is no secret that it has been threatening strikes on Iran's Bushehr nuclear electric power plant - just as it launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on Iraq's, Osirak nuclear electric power plant in 1981.

U.S. news media's timidity was a significant factor in the launching of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This invasion has claimed the lives of over 2000 U.S. soldiers and over 180,000 Iraqis. It has left uncounted others wounded and maimed, it has destroyed much of Iraq's - indeed the world's - cultural heritage, and is likely to cost U.S. taxpayers "between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought," according to a report written by Joseph Stiglitz - recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics. John Ward Anderson of the Washington Post wrote on January 13: "The foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France called Thursday for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for violating its nuclear treaty obligations." Neither he nor the editors or ombudsman at the Post have responded to our request to identify which "nuclear treaty obligations" is Iran violating. Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jack Boureston and Charles D. Ferguson say, "In pursuing a civilian nuclear program, Iran has international law on its side. . . . The best way to know the full extent of Iran's nuclear doings is to offer it help."

Student Mullet
24/01/2006, 5:03 AM
What - you mean like half the rest of the Western world is already dependent upon Russia for its future oil and gas supplies ?!?! Do you read the papers......? :rolleyes:I do ocasionally read the papers, and amoungst the things I've reas is that western europe is very concerned about being dependant on Russia for energy. So much so that a lot of countries are considering building a lot more nuclier power plants. The issue came to a head recently when Russia increased the price of gas in Ukraine because of who the Ukrainians voted into government.

Iran, sensibly enough, does not want to walk into the same weak position.

pete
24/01/2006, 10:23 AM
I suspect just like Russia (they have built nuclear power plants recently) Iran sees more value in exporting oil & satisfying its own energy needs through nuclear.

Macy
24/01/2006, 11:04 AM
I suspect just like Russia (they have built nuclear power plants recently) Iran sees more value in exporting oil & satisfying its own energy needs through nuclear.
In fairness, nuclear is something we're going to have to consider too. Even if you're one of the head in the sand brigade that ignores the fact we already use nuclear produced electricity through the link with the UK National Grid.

I actually heard a report on 5live from Paris (The Worriker Programme, when they had the constitution referendum (that's as good a reference as I can get sorry) where the French Green campaigners were pro-nuclear electricity. They reckoned it was the least bad environmentally of the options compared to coal, oil, gas etc...

pete
24/01/2006, 11:19 AM
In fairness, nuclear is something we're going to have to consider too.

Oil is only going to get more expensive & more unpredictable & since we have virtually no fossil fuels of our own we gonna get screwed even more in the future. At least with Nuclear energy you are self reliant.

Nimbys complain enough when an Incinerator is being build so can only imagine the hassle if even discussed nuclear...

hamish
24/01/2006, 3:05 PM
Guys, problems with nuclear power is that
1. It's "cheap" 'cos every government gives it massive subsidies - otherwise, like the absence of fuel tax on planes, it would be unbelievably expensive. Therefore, citizens pay for it before, during and long after the energy it produces.
2. Not included in the costs of building each nuclear power station will be the decommissioning costs which will be paid for also by? Yeah, citizens' taxes.
3. No satisfactory method has been found to store nuclear waste - I mean, waste is stored far too close to fault lines in the Irish sea and remember that small earthquake recently in the Irish South East? Guess where the focus and epicentre of that emanated from? More storage facilities are muted for the same area in caverns.:eek:
4. Wish I could fund the source now but I did read recently a report by (NOT alternative energy proponents BTW) energy experts that by the time a new generation of nuclear power stations are up and running, the costs will be the same as a viable combination of the clean energy sources.
5.Nuclear power stations DO generate carbon emissions - so much for their cleanliness.
6.A reduction in the sheer waste of energy would make unbelievable savings regarding use of power. I mean, how many houses have proper insulation double glazing? There's a small start. There are, literally, millions of ways countries can reduce waste in energy use.
6. Many of you are too young to remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl - people ore still dying and being born hideously deformed from the latter.
7.Ok Chernobyl was in the old USSR with awful standards in safety BUT the nuclear power industry has a history riddled with corruption, false or non reporting of safety (and dangerous) incidences, "hidden" costs and inefficiency - not just in Sellafield (Windscale) but everywhere - check it out.

How does that tie in with Iran? If Iran goes ahead with even nuclear development for peaceful purposes, it will suffer lack of foreign expertise and finance which means lack of safety within its facilities and with regard to where it will store its waste - not a pleasant prospect.
Besides, given that the mad mullahs organ grinders (and their civilian monkeys) are in control, they are not to be trusted with such awesome forces. I mean, if our so-called open governments are associated with such a dodgy nuclear industry, how, in God's, name can we trust Iran??

Japan
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1961/is_200209/ai_n7190373
http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit92/nit92articles/nit92coverup.html

India
http://www.satribune.com/archives/feb10_16_03/P1_iyangar.htm

Britain and elsewhere
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/37480.html
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=112&format=rss
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1692252,00.html
(Latter from Guardian 22/01/2006)

Anti-Nuclear sites
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/WARevNP.html
http://www.ieer.org/reports/npdb.html

Pro Nuclear (with a little bit of anti) Nuclear
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n022.html
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/fringe_science/safenuke.html

Last point, as some have wrongly stated (not in Foot.ie) nuclear energy is NOT an indigenous source of power - uranium has to be imported and uranium in the world is fast running out. So, more and more countries are building nuclear power plants and intend to do so, where will there be enough uranium for them all???

hamish
09/04/2006, 12:01 AM
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review


Belligerent Until the Bitter End

If You Can't Win One War, Start Another

By Paul Craig Roberts

04/07/06 "Baltimore Chronicle" -- -- The Bush regime currently has wars underway in Afghanistan and in Iraq and can bring neither to a conclusion. Undeterred by these failures, the Bush regime gives every indication that it intends to start a war with Iran, a country that is capable of responding to US aggression over a broader front than the Sunni resistance has mounted in Iraq.

The US lacks sufficient conventional capability to prevail in such widespread conflict. The US also lacks the financial resources. Iraq alone has already cost several hundred billion borrowed dollars, with experts' estimates putting the ultimate cost in excess of one trillion dollars.

Moreover, the Bush regime's belligerent foreign policy extends to regions beyond the Middle East. The Bush regime has recently declared election outcomes in former Soviet republics as "unacceptable."

The Bush regime with the support of both political parties preaches democracy to the world while ignoring it at home. Polls show that Americans are opposed to open borders and amnesties for illegals. But a government willing to dictate to the world is willing to dictate to its own citizens. The "unacceptable" outcomes are those that do not empower parties aligned with the US and NATO. Russians view the Bush regime's "democracy programs" for Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus as an effort to push Russia northward and deprive it of warm water ports.

Russian leaders speak of the "messianism of American foreign policy" leading to a new cold war.

An article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, long regarded as a voice of the American foreign policy establishment, concludes that the Bush regime "is openly seeking primacy in every dimension of modern military technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces." The article suggests that the US has now achieved nuclear superiority and could succeed with a preemptive nuclear attack on both Russia and China. Considering the extreme delusions of the neoconservative warmongers who control the Bush regime, the publication of this article will encourage more aggressive assertions of American hegemony.

The article has "had an explosive effect" in Russia, according to former prime minister Yegor Gaidar. The fact that Russia's nuclear missiles are no longer seen to be sufficiently robust to serve as deterrents could dangerously unleash restraints on the neoconservatives' proclivity to impose their will on the world. The authors of the Foreign Policy article write that America's nuclear primacy positions the US "to check the ambitions of dangerous states such as China, North Korea, and Iran." Neocons, of course, never see their own ambitions as dangerous.

The Bush regime has succeeded in committing America to a belligerent and messianic foreign policy that means years of wars at a minimum and likely preemptive US nuclear attacks against other countries.

How will Americans pay for the decades of war that the neocons are fomenting? The Afghan and Iraqi wars are being financed by the Chinese and Japanese whose loans cover the Bush regime's budgetary red ink. Can US nuclear primacy succeed in forcing the indefinite extension of this financing as a form of tribute? Can the neoconservatives subdue the Islamic Middle East with nuclear weapons without endangering the flow of oil?

The classic method of war finance is inflation. The Romans destroyed the intrinsic value of their coinage with lead. When the US can no longer sell its bonds, it can print money.

The US might have nuclear primacy, but it no longer has economic primacy. The US economy has been living on debt. In 2005 American consumers overspent their incomes for the first time since the Great Depression. The rising trade deficit is cutting into economic growth. Middle class jobs for Americans are being lost to offshore outsourcing and to foreigners brought in on work visas. Salaries in the jobs that remain are being forced down. Adjusted for inflation, starting salaries for university graduates are declining. Business Week's Michael Mandel (September 15, 2005) compared starting salaries in 2005 with those in 2001.

Adjusted for inflation, starting salaries for university graduates are declining.He found a 12.7% decline in computer science pay, a 12% decline in computer engineering pay, and a 10.2% decline in electrical engineering pay. Psychology majors experienced a 9.3% fall in starting salaries, marketing a 6.5% decline, business administration a 5.7% fall, and accounting majors were offered 2.3% less.
Economist Alan Blinder, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, estimates that 42-56 million American service sector jobs are susceptible to offshore outsourcing. Whether or not all of these jobs leave, US salaries will be forced down by the willingness of foreigners to do the work for less.

By substituting cheaper foreign labor for US labor, globalization boosts corporate profits and managerial bonuses at the expense of workers pay. We are seeing the end of the broadly shared prosperity of the post-WWII era. Education and re-training are no protection against offshoring and foreign workers entering America on work visas.

Americans at the lower end of the income scale are being decimated by massive legal and illegal immigration that has dramatically increased the labor supply in construction, cleaning services, and slaughterhouses.

With incomes flat or falling and prices rising, increased taxation to finance the neoconservatives' wars of aggression is not in the cards.

The Bush regime with the support of both political parties preaches democracy to the world while ignoring it at home. Polls show that Americans are opposed to open borders and amnesties for illegals. But a government willing to dictate to the world is willing to dictate to its own citizens. We are witnessing the American citizen's loss of his voice and the rise of concentrated power. The primacy that the neocons are seeking over the world will prevail over the American people, too.

hamish
09/04/2006, 12:06 AM
From that excellent journalist Seymour Hersh

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12645.htm

Sample
"One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ” :D

pete
09/04/2006, 7:55 PM
I was told recently that the US Federal Reserve will no longer publish the amount of currency in circulation (i think its called M3) which means a period of hgher inflation on the cards. Shortsighted solution of print more money.

When will the americans vote these goons out of power?

hamish
09/04/2006, 9:18 PM
I was told recently that the US Federal Reserve will no longer publish the amount of currency in circulation (i think its called M3) which means a period of hgher inflation on the cards. Shortsighted solution of print more money.

When will the americans vote these goons out of power?

Good points Pete - they have literally wrecked the US economy - many jobs now created are "McJobs" and poorly paid. The US isin hock to the Japanese, Saudi Arabians and China - the dollar is virtually worth less and when The Iranian Burse gets on track - trading oil in Euros - then the sh!t will really start hitting the fan. An attack on Iran will be one of the final nails in the economy - back on thread.
The US empire is showing all the traits of end of Empire that the Romans, Brits etc showed, massive debts, unhappy citizenry, over-stretched militarily, disliked ideologically worldwide, the rulers saturated in their own hubris. etc etc etc.
One thing overlooked, there has been not one shred of real evidence that Iran has the tools to make a bloody bomb.

hamish
09/04/2006, 10:25 PM
Interview with that excellent journalist Sy Hersh on CNN today. Scary stuff.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/09.html#a7855

pete
10/04/2006, 2:10 PM
Going off topic a bit but read last week that China has the largest foreign currency reserves in the world (just passed out the Japanese). Something like $800 billion. With weakening dollar going to be a lot of chinese companies making US company purchases...

strangeirish
10/04/2006, 6:09 PM
Rhetoric from Bush (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran_13;_ylt=ApauoWCmcs7MOjVpXudyCnFSw60A;_ylu= X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl). A bad moon rising?

hamish
10/04/2006, 6:45 PM
Rhetoric from Bush (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran_13;_ylt=ApauoWCmcs7MOjVpXudyCnFSw60A;_ylu= X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl). A bad moon rising?

Think the top army brass have told him to back off so it's not a runner thank God.

09 April 2006 - from Global News Matrix
Iran shoots down spy plane from Iraq – report
Tehran, Iran, Apr. 09 – Iran said on Sunday that it shot down an unmanned spy plane from Iraq in the south of the country.

“This plane had lifted off from Iraq and was busy filming the border regions”, the semi-official daily Jomhouri Islami wrote.

The plane’s structural markings and systems have given officials “information”, the report added, without elaborating.

There have been reports that the United States has been secretly sending unmanned surveillance planes into Iran to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear sites.

hamish
12/04/2006, 3:19 AM
Khakeej Times
Full text
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/April/middleeast_April291.xml&section=middleeast&col=

Edited portion below - rest of text already in all media yesterday and today.

Riyadh seeks Russian help to prevent US strike on Iran
(AFP)

11 April 2006



RIYADH - Saudi Arabia, fearing that US military action against Iran would wreak further havoc in the region, has asked Russia to block any bid by Washington to secure UN cover for an attack, a Russian diplomat said on Tuesday.


During a visit to Moscow last week, the head of the Saudi National Security Council “urged Russia to strive to prevent the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution which the United States could use as justification to launch a military assault to knock out Iran’s nuclear facilities,” the diplomat told AFP in Riyadh on condition of anonymity.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former longtime ambassador to the United States who is often tasked with delicate missions, met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow on April 4.

Saudi officials did not give details about the meeting. The Russian diplomat said the talks focused on the row over Iran’s nuclear program but did not make clear what Moscow’s response was to the call for restraining the United States.

A Gulf diplomat, who also requested anonymity, said Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries were worried about the possibility of US military action against Iran at a time when Iraq is engulfed in what is increasingly turning into civil war.

Gulf Arab states fear the fallout of a US-Iran conflict on the oil-rich region, which has seen three wars since 1980, most recently the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, the diplomat said.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal said last week that Riyadh believes Teheran’s assertions about its nuclear activities.

“That is why we don’t see a danger in Iran acquiring knowledge about nuclear energy provided it does not lead to (nuclear) proliferation. Of course, we believe proliferation is a threat,” he said.

Saud also played down Iran’s recent war games during which it tested new weapons, saying the exercises did not pose a threat to Teheran’s Gulf neighbours.

He also said he would visit Iran soon but did not give a specific date.

Bandar earlier visited China, another permanent UN Security Council member with veto power, a trip diplomats in Riyadh believe was also linked to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear activities.

My comment on the above is related to Baby Bush's father Daddy Bush who has massive, billion dollar business connections with Saudi Arabia. Daddy Bush advised against the Iraq invasion so much that Baby Bush now won't answer his calls and they only meet for family events/photo opportunities and PR speil. If the Saudis are worried by Little Georgie hitting Iran one can see some backroom work done here by Daddy Bush with the Saudis. The likes of the Carlisle Group connects up a lot of the Bush/Saudi affairs along with loads of other businesses.
Sad to say, preserving the family business affairs comes first before the little matter of maimed/murdered Iranians. Watch this space and if you see it in any media, remember where you saw it first.
Don't forget either that Walker Bush, Grandaddy Bush, had extensive business connections with the Nazis in Germany as the clouds of war gathered for WW2 and, it is alleged, even after WW2 began.
What a lovely, upstanding, moral family? FFS
Shower of privileged elite that produces another spawn of privileged elite ad infinitum - along with the other scum connected to them (Cheney etc) is it any wonder they have no qualms dumping the little people into war zones without most of them fighting themselves or their kids. - at least Bush the Elder was a genuine soldier and one can see why he's not as likely to alienate other nations and fight foolish wars unilaterlly - take Gulf War One - where, whether one agrees with it ( Ido) or not he even got the UN and even the likes of Bathist Syria to fight against Saddam. Like most soldiers he knows the blood and pain of war.


In the interest of balance and the Iranian situation and the Iranian Bourse, here's a report from Fred Foldvary who argues that an Iranian Bourse will NOT effect the US economy but might help it. Too long to cut and paste.
It's from Information Clearing House. who actually do feature opposite viewpoints.
http://www.progress.org/2006/fold450.htm

One flaw in his argument I think - a move to an Iranian Bourse would hammer the Dow and Nasdaq and, basically stocks/Wall Street thus impacting US interest rates, which will effect business, the market, credit cards, consumer confidence and so and which, eventually will effect the dollar's value. , from an internal US point of view - they might not have strong enough dollar to buy foreign goods and companies and invest abroad.

I report, you decide.

pete
12/04/2006, 12:05 PM
The UN & US allowed Irans neighbours to acquire nuclear weapons with not much of fuse so hypocritical to object to Iran pursuing.

hamish
12/04/2006, 8:03 PM
The UN & US allowed Irans neighbours to acquire nuclear weapons with not much of fuse so hypocritical to object to Iran pursuing.

Pete, I think Seymout Hersh did everyone a great favour by that article he wrote last weekend and the subsequent follow up interviews etc. Bushies are now really on the defensive and a number of ex-Generals are hammering them on Iran and Iraq.
Worrying to see the similarities between the lead up to Iraq and Iran though.
Hope the pathetic US media gets up off its collective hole and not cheer lead like it did the last time.

Saint Tom
12/04/2006, 9:24 PM
cracking thread lads,

personally speaking, i believe it is very dangerous for a country of such ideaological difference and down right unpredictability to ourselves (western world) to possess such apocolyptic weaponry. I dont believe that they wish to possess such technology solely for energy production.

Iran have been courting dominancy in the middle east for decades and it is actively encouraging shia/ sunni splits

hamish
13/04/2006, 1:42 AM
cracking thread lads,

personally speaking, i believe it is very dangerous for a country of such ideaological difference and down right unpredictability to ourselves (western world) to possess such apocolyptic weaponry. I dont believe that they wish to possess such technology solely for energy production.

Iran have been courting dominancy in the middle east for decades and it is actively encouraging shia/ sunni splits

Good point Saint Tom (gimme a blessing, aaah gwan:D ).

You might find this artcile from the Guardian's Simon Jenkins of interest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1751841,00.html

Excerpt

One country in the region that has retained some political pluralism** is Iran. It has shown bursts of democratic activity and, importantly, has experienced internal regime change. If ever there was a nation not to drive to the extreme it is Iran. If ever there was a powerful state to reassure and befriend rather than abuse and threaten, it is Iran. If ever there was a regime not to goad into seeking nuclear weapons it is Iran. Yet that is precisely what British and American policy is doing. It is completely nuts.

**Dunno about that:confused:

Some Steve Bell cartoons on Iran/UN/World

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1705076,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1689067,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1483250,00.html

hamish
15/04/2006, 1:44 AM
Once again, the neo-con cabal of chickenhawks are encouraging a war against Iran.
I laugh when they're called "hawks" - doesn't a hawk actually attack things physically. Every single one of these cretins are Vietnam or Gulf War war-dodgers yet they use expressions like "we" when they advocate the US attacking anyone. I've discovered a better name for them - War Pimps.

Article:"To Battle Stations! To Battle Stations!"
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32889

Extract
"Accordingly, it should hit not just the nuclear facilities, but also the symbols of state oppression: the intelligence ministry, the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard, the guard towers of the notorious Evin Prison."

Chickenhawk definition - Wikipedia
Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.

US "outsourcing" Special Operations for Iran
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12727.htm

US also signed an agreement with Bulgaria to use military bases there.
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2006/04/12/feature-02

Isn't Bulgaria to be a new member of the EU soonish? Shouldn't there be an EU response to this?