World may back [Israel in] Iran op as part of deal [with palestinians]

Status
Not open for further replies.
pjdude1219 said:
violation of another states right to switch to a non fossil fuel eletrical source?
Click to expand...

bravo.jpg


You call this switching to non fossil fuel?​

pj I have a Bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have on the cheep.

You don't need centrifuge cascades to build a peaceful nuclear power infrastructure, you need centrifuge cascades to make bomb grade material.
 
Norsefire said:
Israel has nukes
USA has nukes

Then goddammit, Iran can have nukes.
Click to expand...

I agree. And so can Zimbabwe. And North Korea should have as much right to sell their Nuclear technology or other military technology as the USA does.

Of Iran and Zimbabwe would have to exit the Non-Proliferation treaty before they should have the same rights as Israel.


If the world wants Non-Proliferation to work the world must reduce the motivations keep or acquire nuclear weapons rather than just relying on the treaty and the ability of the nuclear states to bully the non-nuclear states out of seeking nuclear weapons to protect themselves from their enemies and to protect themselves from the bullying of the nuclear states.

I am afraid that their will have to be at least a limited but real world government if we want a future without nuclear wars. The UN just is not cutting it because the UN can not protect anybody from anybody unless the nuclear super powers are all in agreement.
 
Question: why should Iran have nukes? Exactly what good is it to the world, if a country like Iran has nukes? Does Iran want to use nukes them on somebody?

If so, then they shouldn't be allowed to develop nukes, and that's that. If no, then why do they even need them?
 
Last edited:
Baron Max said:
Me, too! I hope Iran gets thousands of nukes ...big suckers, too! No, wait, it would be better if they had millions of smaller ones, then they could affect lots more people and more area of land.

Yep, more nukes is the answer to all the world's problems. Perhaps we should manufacture the damned things like AK-47s and M-16s ...make 'em cheap enough for everyone to buy one or two of 'em.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
A nuke is just a big bomb. So what if they have one or a hundred? Unless you are against people having bombs? Hell, maybe if they had a nuke they'd drop it on Jerusalem and then Israel could drop one on Mecca and then I could pop popcorn and watch as everyone blames Obama for their religious feud that's been going on since even before the time of the Islamic crusades.
 
If anyone has been following the Israeli press since the elections, there is a curious trend to be observed. First, you see a "representative" of a western state [named or unnamed] making a statement which appears to support or endorse Israel's 'right' to occupy, build settlements, bomb Iran, delay the peace process, refuse the two state solution etc while purporting that the "world" or the US supports these actions. This is BIG news, which is usually followed a day or so later [sometimes longer] by a statement from a head of the referenced state or their representatives that this is not true. This is small news.

I wonder what is really going on in the background.
 
You don't need centrifuge cascades to build a peaceful nuclear power infrastructure,
Click to expand...
Yes you do. Otherwise you are dependent on your enemies to supply you with enriched fuel.

Btw: Back a few years, Iran was denied the technology necessary to convert their power grid plans to a type of nuclear reactor less likely to be a source of weapons stock. Go figure.
p-brane said:
So it's only evidence that is "in public view" that matters?
Click to expand...
No other evidence exists, except on the unsupported assertions of known liars.
p-brane said:
"I'd be worried about Pakistan. Maybe, if things get rougher in Pakistan, we can persuade the Iranians to secure the Pakistani nukes until things settle down - they're right next door, and the nukes would be safe from terrorist hands there."


Baiting like this is an insult. Don't do it again. (Though if it turns out that you're serious, have a nice life and goodbye).
Click to expand...
You are welcome to be insulted as you insist - I am perfectly serious: Iran would probably be a much safer home for the nukes now in Pakistan, if the mess there gets any worse.
willnever said:
Question: why should Iran have nukes? Exactly what good is it to the world, if a country like Iran has nukes?
Click to expand...
Self-defense against Israel and the US. Israel is an aggressive and expanding country, with nuclear weapons and belligerent rhetoric full of threats against Iran, that has invaded and bombed countries near Iran recently. The US just lately invaded two of Iran's neighbors, with a full army, and has been making explicit nuclear threats against Iran. Iran has more justification for developing a nuclear deterrent than almost any other country on earth.
 
Last edited:
Hi iceaura,

In your post you've attributed to me your remark that you'd "be worried about Pakistan. Maybe, if things get rougher in Pakistan, we can persuade the Iranians to secure the Pakistani nukes until things settle down - they're right next door, and the nukes would be safe from terrorist hands there."

Would you mind correcting that? Thanks.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
bravo.jpg


You call this switching to non fossil fuel?​

pj I have a Bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have on the cheep.

You don't need centrifuge cascades to build a peaceful nuclear power infrastructure, you need centrifuge cascades to make bomb grade material.
Click to expand...

First off its cheap. Secondly you have no proof for them making a bomb.
 
pjdude1219 said:
First off its cheap. Secondly you have no proof for them making a bomb.
Click to expand...

pj, it is not cheap the way Iranians are doing it.

http://www.cised.org/EconomicsofNuclearPowerfromHeavyWaterReactors.pdf

The use of heavy water moderator is the key to the PHWR system, enabling the use of natural uranium as fuel (in the form of ceramic UO2), which means that it can be operated without expensive uranium enrichment facilities. Additionally, the mechanical arrangement of the PHWR, which places most of the moderator at lower temperatures, is particularly efficient because the resulting thermal neutrons are "more thermal" than in traditional designs, where the moderator normally runs hot. This means that a PHWR is not only able to "burn" natural uranium and other fuels, but tends to do so more efficiently as well.

Pressurised heavy water reactors do have some drawbacks. Heavy water generally costs hundreds of dollars per kilogram, though this is a trade-off against reduced fuel costs. It is also notable that the reduced energy content of natural uranium as compared to enriched uranium necessitates more frequent replacement of fuel; this is normally accomplished by use of an on-power refuelling system. The increased rate of fuel movement through the reactor also results in higher volumes of spent fuel than in reactors employing enriched uranium; however, as the unenriched fuel was less reactive, the heat generated is less, allowing the spent fuel to be stored much more compactly

Iran rejects Russian nuclear offer​
From Journalist Shirzad Bozorgmehr
Monday, January 2, 2006; Posted: 4:38 a.m. EST (09:38 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's chief nuclear negotiator has rejected a Russian offer to produce nuclear fuel in its plants for Iran, the latest effort to resolve a diplomatic impasse over Tehran's nuclear program.​

If Iran isn't interested in a Nuclear Bomb? Why reject the offer from Russia? a much cheaper source of fuel for the reactors than making their own.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
bravo.jpg


You call this switching to non fossil fuel?​

pj I have a Bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have on the cheep.

You don't need centrifuge cascades to build a peaceful nuclear power infrastructure, you need centrifuge cascades to make bomb grade material.
Click to expand...

Is that the bomb the Americans dropped on Hiroshima? Or the one the Americans dropped on Nagasaki?
 
p-brane said:
In your post you've attributed to me your remark
Click to expand...
I moved the quote marks so that they would register in your consciousness.
SAM said:
Is that the bomb the Americans dropped on Hiroshima? Or the one the Americans dropped on Nagasaki?
Click to expand...
It's neither - it's probably a fusion bomb. Buffalo is not attentive to detail.
buffalo said:
If Iran isn't interested in a Nuclear Bomb? Why reject the offer from Russia? a much cheaper source of fuel for the reactors than making their own.
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily cheaper.

Besides, if you cannot think of a few reasons Iran would prefer to not be dependent on Russia for its electrical power, ask the Chechnyans or Afghanis, or any of the Eastern European countries currently dependent on Russian natural gas.
 
SAM said:
"It's neither - it's probably a fusion bomb."

How can you tell?
Click to expand...
The size and shape of the cloud.

But a quick look at the source identifies it as the Castle Bravo shot - which you might want to look into, and file for future use in your typical response style here. Not the US's finest hour - a little miscalculation and some unanticipated consequences, as have been common with nuclear ventures generally.

Funny that the major problem with Iranian power plant nukes - the chances of accident and contamination and screwup and so forth, from the waste and Iran's unstable geology and other factors - is not publicized more.
 
iceaura said:
The size and shape of the cloud.

But a quick look at the source identifies it as the Castle Bravo shot - which you might want to look into, and file for future use in your typical response style here. Not the US's finest hour - a little miscalculation and some unanticipated consequences, as have been common with nuclear ventures generally.

Funny that the major problem with Iranian power plant nukes - the chances of accident and contamination and screwup and so forth, from the waste and Iran's unstable geology and other factors - is not publicized more.
Click to expand...

Thats because the "concerned" citizens don't really care what happens to Iranians. After all, they are looking for an excuse to bomb them. Thanks for the info, the fallout seems to have been incredibly irresponsible.
 
WillNever said:
Question: why should Iran have nukes? Exactly what good is it to the world, if a country like Iran has nukes? Does Iran want to use nukes them on somebody?

If so, then they shouldn't be allowed to develop nukes, and that's that. If no, then why do they even need them?
Click to expand...

And of course the US having nukes is GOOD for the world? :m:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top