"Iran has a right to Nuke power"

[SteamWake]

Barry to Iran "You have a right to Nuke power, as long as you 'promise' not to weaponize it".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200947_pf.html

I'm sure they will keep their word.

[heartc]

Well, even if they won't keep their word (they didn't really "give their word" to anything themselves yet, right? - Except kicking Israel off the map, that is), this is important for the history books.
If his "Easy there, I want to talk with you" approach works - great. If it doesn't, it is good for the history books. Kinda like that "Islam is a religion of peace" notion Bush gave. It's a bit like stealing the whole drama and point away from the opposing side ("OF COURSE you can have nuclear power plants - OF COURSE you can believe this and that - my heart felt invitations / congrats!") and when they *fu(k it up*, you can kick them in the balls real good from the moral high ground.

Things to consider here though are
a) it might be too late for kicking (like what happened to Kennedy with his more relaxed view on the Soviets and all of the sudden woke up with a couple of nukes in the neighbourhood)
b) no kicking might happen by Obama.

In these cases that approach he is taking would be nothing else than pre-emptive surrender...and I hope this isn't the case. But who knows, maybe he couldn't care less if Israel is wiped off the map for example. Just like prolly around 50% Americans and 99% Europeans couldn't, and it would be totally compatible with the greater part of human history as well as the prophecies in the Holy Bible.
And when he continues and turns the US into a semi-Marxist, pro-"Palestinian" state, then maybe the Islamofascists, who have a problem with that whole "success through innovation / free societies / free markets" vs. "ignorance and beheading" approach, won't hate Amerika that much anymore and only threaten / use the nukes against the evil Jews. Hell, they blame the Jews for US foreign and economical policy already anyway. So he could easily cope out by saying "Hell, you're right - but that's not me. I'm CHANGE."

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Barry to Iran "You have a right to Nuke power, as long as you 'promise' not to weaponize it".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200947_pf.html

I'm sure they will keep their word.

I'm incredibly conflicted on this issue. First off, I do believe that ANY nation has the right to meet its energy needs the way they see fit. On the other hand, Iran is clearly one of the greatest threats to world peace and prosperity, and allowing it to openly use technology that can be dangerously weaponized is a threat to everyone.

Personally, I think the solution would be to allow them to build nuclear reactors, but under the condition that, should any of the material be found to be used for other purposes, or should there be ANY attempt to conceal its nuclear program, the plants will be immediately destroyed.

[Frame57]

I think Iran would be better off with a really huge magnifying glass built over the country. It is a great way to get energy from the sun and really fun to scorch ants with too.

[bookworm_020]

Iran is allowed under law to build a nuclear reactor and process fuel. The way in which it is doing it and the rhetoric it has used in the past makes if a very worrying issue. It has ignored many offers in helping building civilian nuclear power plants and supply of nuclear fuel if it would discontinue it's nuclear program but has refused.

Many of the countries with nuclear reactors are open for international inspection, this helps to reassure other countries that nothing untoward is going on and that countries stay accountable and transparent in there dealings.

Iran has either refused this or has give lip service to it. They say they need it for energy supply, are they going to run out of oil in the near future and aren't going to tell anyone? Pakistan is bad enough with nuclear weapons, Iran would be a lot worse. It already has launches capable of long range delivery of nuclear warheads, and would use them without fear of consequence if it felt it suited them.

Many nations have been vocal and have tried to reason with Iran over this but have got nowhere. Israel has raised concerns, but has been relatively quiet about this (compared to others in articles that I've read, I understand this may not be the case). They might do a military strike to try and stop it, but it would be a lot harder than when they did it to Iraq, greater distance (and flying over Iraq's airspace would be a political minefield) the dispersement of the sites producing nuclear componates and well as the protection given by there location and military defences.

To try and stop them is the hard part, and I don't think the world can let Iran get nuclear weapons, but the fallout from stopping them many very real.

[SUBMAN1]

I'd say ship them a few nukes. You would never have to worry about them because they would use them on themselves anyway.

-S

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I'm incredibly conflicted on this issue. First off, I do believe that ANY nation has the right to meet its energy needs the way they see fit. On the other hand, Iran is clearly one of the greatest threats to world peace and prosperity, and allowing it to openly use technology that can be dangerously weaponized is a threat to everyone.

Personally, I think the solution would be to allow them to build nuclear reactors, but under the condition that, should any of the material be found to be used for other purposes, or should there be ANY attempt to conceal its nuclear program, the plants will be immediately destroyed.

It is possible to have nuclear power plants that can't be used to create nuclear weapons. Iran refuses to go that route, so despite what they say their intentions are obvious.

Originally Posted by Rip

It is possible to have nuclear power plants that can't be used to create nuclear weapons. Iran refuses to go that route, so despite what they say their intentions are obvious.

Plutonium is a by product of fission reactors so I think it would be very difficult to rule out weaponising. Add to that the statements that they have 1700 gaseous centrifuges and the implication is clear.

Gaseous centrifuges are used in a cascade method to purify Uranium into high concentrations of U235 from U238. U235 at purities above 90% are vital for effective nuclear weapons.

So now if Iran builds a nuclear reactor (peraps a small one as under soldier stadium), plutonium will result, and with 1700 centrifuges working to create moe U235 All the components of a nuclear explosive are available.

The only two items left are the some what exacting explosive mechanism of say a gun type weapon (as used on Hiroshima) and a means of delivering the physics package.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Plutonium is a by product of fission reactors so I think it would be very difficult to rule out weaponising. Add to that the statements that they have 1700 gaseous centrifuges and the implication is clear.

Gaseous centrifuges are used in a cascade method to purify Uranium into high concentrations of U235 from U238. U235 at purities above 90% are vital for effective nuclear weapons.

So now if Iran builds a nuclear reactor (peraps a small one as under soldier stadium), plutonium will result, and with 1700 centrifuges working to create moe U235 All the components of a nuclear explosive are available.

I was already planning the response to Rip when I read this, which is spot-on.

I don't believe it is possible to have a nuclear reactor incapable of providing materials which can be refined into weapon-grade (correct me if I'm wrong on this).

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I don't believe it is possible to have a nuclear reactor incapable of providing materials which can be refined into weapon-grade (correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Although, it is possible to have a nuclear reactor incapable of providing
weapon grade material. (without the heavy uranium separators).