FreeDuck wrote:oralloy wrote:FreeDuck wrote:That's not what your articles say.
It looks to me like the articles say Iran has begun producing fuel for their 40 MW heavy water reactor.
Yes, it does. Is that the same as "the only realistic use for this reactor is the production of weapons grade plutonium"?
No. That statement came from me, not from the articles.
oralloy wrote:dyslexia wrote:So I take it that Israel has an illegal nuclear weapons program as well.
No. Israel never signed the NPT, so their nuclear weapons program is perfectly legal.
I thought Israel upgraded their "burning bush" from Mount Sinai to some heavy duty Old Testament lightening. This was all legal, since there is no international treaty on burning bushes or lightening.
There is not a damn thing the US can do to stop any nation with the will and finances from producing nuclear weapons short of war. A war with Iran would be a disaster for the US and make what is happening in Iraq look like a walk in the park.
oralloy wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Maybe they are choosing to withdraw from that treaty. I'm sure they have every right to do so.
They haven't withdrawn yet.
But since they've been running their nuclear weapons program for some 20 years while still a party to the treaty, the US is not going to suddenly accept their weapons program as legitimate if they now withdraw.
Seems Iran cant win. Stay within the NPT and the US says they are illegally producing nuclear weapons. Withdraw from the NPT and the US says they shouldnt be allowed to produced nuclear weapons.
Foofie, Winston Churchill is dead. But before he died he said jaw jaw is better than war war.
Steve 41oo wrote:oralloy wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Maybe they are choosing to withdraw from that treaty. I'm sure they have every right to do so.
They haven't withdrawn yet.
But since they've been running their nuclear weapons program for some 20 years while still a party to the treaty, the US is not going to suddenly accept their weapons program as legitimate if they now withdraw.
Seems Iran cant win. Stay within the NPT and the US says they are illegally producing nuclear weapons. Withdraw from the NPT and the US says they shouldnt be allowed to produced nuclear weapons.
Foofie, Winston Churchill is dead. But before he died he said jaw jaw is better than war war.
All wars cannot be as heroic as saving sheep in the Falkland Islands!
oralloy wrote
Quote:And Hillary is just as likely (if not more likely) to bomb Iran as Bush is if she gets elected.
Are you a seer or perhaps a possessor of a crystal ball. Based on what brings you to that conclusion.
au1929 wrote:A war with Iran would be a disaster for the US and make what is happening in Iraq look like a walk in the park.
Meh.
We don't have to invade -- just drop some high explosive on their heads.
Steve 41oo wrote:Seems Iran cant win. Stay within the NPT and the US says they are illegally producing nuclear weapons. Withdraw from the NPT and the US says they shouldnt be allowed to produced nuclear weapons.
They could stop enriching uranium and building plutonium-production reactors. That would get us off their case.
au1929 wrote:oralloy wrote
Quote:And Hillary is just as likely (if not more likely) to bomb Iran as Bush is if she gets elected.
Are you a seer or perhaps a possessor of a crystal ball. Based on what brings you to that conclusion.
I base it mostly on the foreign policy statements she's made, both in general, and in relation to Iran.
Plus, I think she is close to Bill policy wise. The Clintons just seem to me like they have a good handle on foreign policy, and aren't afraid to bomb people when it's in US interests.
oralloy wrote:au1929 wrote:oralloy wrote
Quote:And Hillary is just as likely (if not more likely) to bomb Iran as Bush is if she gets elected.
Are you a seer or perhaps a possessor of a crystal ball. Based on what brings you to that conclusion.
I base it mostly on the foreign policy statements she's made, both in general, and in relation to Iran.
Plus, I think she is close to Bill policy wise. The Clintons just seem to me like they have a good handle on foreign policy, and aren't afraid to bomb people when it's in US interests.
In other words it is your opinion with nothing to substantiate it.
The logic of all this amuses me. The US, which first supplied nuclear technology to Iran, and insisted they sign the npt, now accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons. But Iran has had regular inspections under the npt and (despite one or two close shaves) has not been charged with illegal activity, nor have they withdrawn from the agreement. Moreover they adamantly deny illegal activity. So there is no proof whatsoever that they are producing nuclear weapons. If there was any proof you can bet the US would let the world know about it in a big way. So it then seems to follow that because there is no evidence of a weapons programme, it must be going on in secret. So just like Iraq, Iran is being told to prove a negative. To prove they have no weapons programme, just like Iraq was required to prove they had no wmd. As it is logically impossible to do so, and Iran therefore consistantly fails to "come clean" about a weapons programme it maintains it hasnt got, the general public is led to believe that lack of proof actually proves the case against them.
Re the Falklands, no one in Britain gave a damn about the place for decades. But that changed quite rapidly with a) the Argentine invasion b) the realisation that there is oil offshore.
oralloy wrote:au1929 wrote:A war with Iran would be a disaster for the US and make what is happening in Iraq look like a walk in the park.
Meh.
We don't have to invade -- just drop some high explosive on their heads.
Like we did in Iraq? Boots on the ground in the long run is the only way to win a war and keep the pease. The US has neither the manpower or the resources for another Iraq or for that matter the will.
au1929 wrote:oralloy wrote:au1929 wrote:oralloy wrote
Quote:And Hillary is just as likely (if not more likely) to bomb Iran as Bush is if she gets elected.
Are you a seer or perhaps a possessor of a crystal ball. Based on what brings you to that conclusion.
I base it mostly on the foreign policy statements she's made, both in general, and in relation to Iran.
Plus, I think she is close to Bill policy wise. The Clintons just seem to me like they have a good handle on foreign policy, and aren't afraid to bomb people when it's in US interests.
In other words it is your opinion with nothing to substantiate it.
Yes. It is my opinion that Hillary will be willing to bomb Iran if Bush doesn't do it, if she is elected.
Steve 41oo wrote:The logic of all this amuses me. The US, which first supplied nuclear technology to Iran, and insisted they sign the npt, now accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons. But Iran has had regular inspections under the npt
They tried to keep the Natanz and Arak sites secret from the world. They only allowed inspections there once the sites were discovered.
Steve 41oo wrote:So just like Iraq, Iran is being told to prove a negative. To prove they have no weapons programme, just like Iraq was required to prove they had no wmd. As it is logically impossible to do so, and Iran therefore consistantly fails to "come clean" about a weapons programme it maintains it hasnt got, the general public is led to believe that lack of proof actually proves the case against them.
What Iran needs to do is stop enriching uranium, and stop building a plutonium production reactor.
au1929 wrote:oralloy wrote:au1929 wrote:A war with Iran would be a disaster for the US and make what is happening in Iraq look like a walk in the park.
Meh.
We don't have to invade -- just drop some high explosive on their heads.
Like we did in Iraq? Boots on the ground in the long run is the only way to win a war and keep the pease. The US has neither the manpower or the resources for another Iraq or for that matter the will.
The point of the bombing will not be to topple Iran's government like we toppled Iraq's.
The point of the bombing will be to blow up Iran's illegal nuclear facilities.
oralloy wrote:
What Iran needs to do is stop enriching uranium, and stop building a plutonium production reactor.
Enriching is not illegal. You assert they are building a plutonium production reactor. I'd be interested to learn what leads you to that conclusion.
Steve 41oo wrote:oralloy wrote:
What Iran needs to do is stop enriching uranium, and stop building a plutonium production reactor.
Enriching is not illegal. You assert they are building a plutonium production reactor. I'd be interested to learn what leads you to that conclusion.
Do you know where plutonium comes from Steve?
Pu239 (the stuff most nuclear bombs are made of) is formed inside nuclear reactors when a neutron given off from the fission of U235 slams into an atom of inert U238.
Steve 41oo wrote:oralloy wrote:What Iran needs to do is stop enriching uranium, and stop building a plutonium production reactor.
Enriching is not illegal.
Unless it is part of a weapons program in a country not allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
Steve 41oo wrote:You assert they are building a plutonium production reactor. I'd be interested to learn what leads you to that conclusion.
The only use for a 40MW heavy water reactor is to use the neutron flux to convert one isotope into another.
I really doubt they are going to use that neutron flux to produce medical isotopes.
