iran doesnt back off on nuclear tech - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-10-2005, 01:19 AM   #1
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:26 AM
iran doesnt back off on nuclear tech

IAEA to resume Iran crisis talks

The UN nuclear watchdog is due to hold a second day of crisis talks on Iran's nuclear programme, after its resumption of operations at its plant at Isfahan.
The IAEA wants to persuade Iran to resume a voluntary suspension of uranium conversion at the facility.

Iran says seals will be broken on other parts of the plant on Wednesday, which would enable it to operate fully.

Iran's president has said he is ready for more talks on its nuclear programme and will put forward new proposals.

The US and the EU have urged Tehran to return to negotiations.

The EU and Washington want Iran to abandon its scheme, which they suspect is a cover for a nuclear weapons programme, in exchange for political and economic concessions.

Iran suspended its nuclear programme in 2004 to allow for talks, but began work at Isfahan on Monday after Iran rejected the latest EU offer.

'Deeply suspicious'

The International Atomic Energy Agency is discussing whether Iran should be referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

The West could call for sanctions on the grounds that Iran hid its uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, without telling the IAEA.

The UK representative at the agency told the BBC that it was beginning to look as if Iran was not open to persuasion to halt activity.

Peter Jenkins said that options might have to be considered, including reporting Iran to the Council.

On Tuesday Russia joined in mounting calls to Tehran to stop conversion work.

Russia is Iran's main partner in its effort to develop nuclear power and is helping the state to build a nuclear reactor at Bushehr.

However, the foreign ministry said that Tehran should halt activity and continue to work closely with the IAEA "to resolve remaining question over Iran's nuclear programme".

In the US, President George W Bush said Iran's willingness to return to talks was a "positive sign".

But he added that he was still "deeply suspicious" that Iran was intent on developing a nuclear weapon.

Speaking on behalf of the EU, France said it was still possible to seek a negotiated settlement.

Conversion process

Iran says it has the legal right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to carry out the nuclear fuel cycle.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office last week, said Iran had done nothing unlawful by resuming uranium conversion. He said he would put forward new proposals for negotiation after forming a cabinet.

The Isfahan plant is Iran's main uranium conversion facility. Conversion is an early stage in the nuclear fuel cycle, turning raw uranium - known as yellowcake - into the feedstock for enriched uranium.

Uranium enriched to a low level is used to produce nuclear fuel, while further enrichment makes it suitable for use in atomic weapons.

bbc.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4136662.stm

--------------------

I live in one of Iran's neighbours, so obviously I am against their ambitions on possessing nuclear weapons, or plutonium fit to produce them. Since Iran is a very rich in terms of oil reserves, it is unlikely that they'd pursue nuclear technology just for energy generation. They probably do want nukes. Now, how do we stop them from getting these nukes? Since the US has loads of nukes and they are in no way giving them up, it would be a tad bit hypocritical to ask for other countries to do so. The only way to stop profilateraton of nukes is by example. Get rid of the nukes in the US, Russia, Pakistan and India, and then you have the higher moral ground to say 'you cant have nukes'. Frankly, all these nuke-hugging countries piss me off!
__________________

__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 03:51 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:26 AM
US should reduce it's city destroying arsenel and develop newer tactical nuclear weapons, it would be a much more useful arsenel that could deal with underground bunkers and facilities better than conventional bunker busters. The days of MAD are over, the very idea of leveling entire cities with these weapons is generally opposed by the public. Adaption to the Post Cold War environment is neccessary.

You will not stop proliferation by scapping all of your own stockpiles, the fact is that nuclear weapons are a great umbrella for a nation and can enable more bold and belligerent attitude. As long as that remains the case countries with an interest can strive to attain them.

I would say that an air strike against the facilities would be a good idea as a last resort but since Osirak the Iranians learned from Saddams mistakes. They probably distribute their program making it near impossible to take it all out in one raid. So we will see the glorious alternative, huff and bluster from the IAEA and most countries, followed by threat of sanctions, which could end up tipping the political situation internally in Iran.

I think the best bet when they get their bombs is to co-ordinate with the pro-democracy movement and work hard to get internal opposition to the Mullah's, if they entrench their power with threat of nuclear armageddon and become untouchables it would severely retard any hope of a democratic Middle East ~ Iran as one of the cheif terror exporting countries in the region must change, and unlike Iraq the conditions for internal change do exist, but they can very easily dissapear through inaction.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-10-2005, 04:40 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
the very idea of leveling entire cities with these weapons is generally opposed by the public.
What an understatement.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 02:19 AM   #4
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 236
Local Time: 09:26 PM
I'm I the only person who laughed when Iran said they will use their nuclear program for "peaceful purposes"?
__________________
Halifax is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 02:23 AM   #5
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 09:26 PM
We don;t seem to care that India and Pakistan both have nukes and they're more likely to blast each other into oblivion than Iran will, so what's the biggie?

Israel, of course. it Israel has had the bomb for a long time now. She can threaten whomover she wants. Again..what's the biggie?
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 03:00 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:26 AM
But she does not threaten, Israel does not even officially acknowledge that it has said weapons and maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity. And when a nation is surrounded by enemies who have on numerous occasions tried to annihilate you the trump card of nuclear weapons is a neccesity.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 03:18 AM   #7
The Fly
 
s_tielemans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Local Time: 10:26 PM
It's a bit odd though that countries who have the bomb tell others "oh no, you can't do that, that would be too dangerous". The non-proliferation treaty is endorsed by countries for which it didn't matter. Basically it's a treaty to keep everyone but ourselves from getting A-bombs, and even from using nuclear energy because they might make A-bombs (granted, can't see Iran NOT making them).
__________________
s_tielemans is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 06:42 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
But she does not threaten, Israel does not even officially acknowledge that it has said weapons and maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity. And when a nation is surrounded by enemies who have on numerous occasions tried to annihilate you the trump card of nuclear weapons is a neccesity.
having a nuke bomb is a threath to other countries by itself. Maybe Iran want to protect himself against Israel ?
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 06:47 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:26 AM
No, threatening to use that bomb or posturing in a particular war is a threat to other countries. I think that the statements from the Iranian leadership about wiping Israel off the map because she can only wound the world of Islam is different from a neither confirm nor deny policy for nuclear weapons adopted after your neighbours numerous attempts to wipe your country off the map.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-11-2005, 11:10 PM   #10
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Dont you think the fact that Israel has the bomb makes countries like Iran want to have it too? and as for Israel not confirming having nukes, why would they do that? 'oh yeah we have a hangar full of ICBMs, wanna see them?' doesnt make sense!

by the way, excited about serenity?
__________________

__________________
all_i_want is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com