A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Iran's nuclear program



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 10th 04, 12:11 AM
Thelasian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Iran's nuclear program

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message ...
"...Proof:
UN clears Iran nuclear facility...."

Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein while
closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during the 1990s?



Oh, so the starving of IRaqi children was the UNs' fault and not the
fault of the USA??

LOL!!! Talk about scapegoating!

FYI, remember what Madame Albright had to say about it:

Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I
mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is
the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)




Is that the same UN that has it's blue beret troops watch while black
Africans slaughter other black Africans?

It couldn't be that UN could it?

WDA

end



--


----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from junk email by MailFrontier Desktop
from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com

"Thelasian" wrote in message
m...
Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned:

1- The Bushehr reactor-which was started under the Shah with US
support-is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a ligh****er
reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits
that much.

Proof:
UN clears Iran nuclear facility
The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said
Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of
concern.
(SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004)


2- According to Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an
"INALIENABLE RIGHT" to possess nuclear technology. Several other
nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and
Japan. Note how the articles conflate a nuclear "weapons" program with
a "nuclear program"

3- Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive oil and gas
because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on the sale
oil and gas for earning hard currency. In fact the Stanford Research
Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on
oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which
have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such
as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with
geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest
hydroengery dam.

4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program
in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE
that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the legitimate technology to
build a weapon of it desires to do so. Needless to say, ANY TECHNOLOGY
"could" be used to make nukes, and so could any country.

Proof:
"IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found "no
evidence" Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons...
SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003

" 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons
program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no
smoking gun.' "
SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28


5- The bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor did not signficantly affect
Iraq's nuclear program, since the centrifuge sites were not bombed. If
anything it encouraged them to speed up the process. But in any case,
Iran has signed the Additional Protocol which permits IAEA inspections
anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had not.

6- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all
to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a
deterrence.

7- Currently, Iran has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its
nuclear installations are all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North
Korea.

8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start
working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will
pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed -
and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6
mos, the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's
missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads

9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran
is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's
decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full
support of the people of the government too, so changing governments
will not change the decision to build nukes.

10- There are already many Iranians who believe that Iran should
withdraw from the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has failed to
abide by ITS obligations under the same treaty, and Iran is surrounded
by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten Iran's
security.

So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb Iran and see what happens.

  #2  
Old August 10th 04, 02:07 AM
zalzon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:30:46 -0700, W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:

Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein while
closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during the 1990s?



Truth be known, the US facilitated/manipulated the UN into that with
sanctions on evertying. When it became clear that the Saddam regime was
not going to collapse as a result of sanctions, the bogus WMD issue came
along. The rest as they say is history.


Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive oil and gas


I doubt the above statement is true. While countries do diversify their
energy sources, it makes little economic sense for an oil & gas abundant
nation to invest in expensive nuclear energy production. Nuclear energy
production makes the best economic sense for countries with few fossil
fuel reserves and little hydroelectric potential. e.g. US, France, Germany,
Japan, India, China. They make no sense for countries like Iraq, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Venesuela... even Russia to a great extent if climatic
factors are excluded.

The implications become more obvious when seen against the backdrop of
Iran's plans to master the nuclear fuel cycle from mining the ore to its
reprocessing.
  #3  
Old August 10th 04, 11:42 PM
Stop SPAM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thelasian wrote:
Stop SPAM wrote in message ...
Thelasian wrote:
Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned

...snipped...
How about these new facts - sounds awfully suspiciously like Iran is
working on becoming a nuclear power, and doesn't care who - including
"Old Europe" - knows, or what UN sanctions it receives. Where have we
heard this before?

Actually, these are not "new facts" at all. And Iran is indeed working
on becoming a "nuclear power" - a civilian nuclear power. That's what
the NPT says is an "inalienable right" of countries to do.
Oh, and these facts are coming from "Old Europe", not the US. Are you
now accusing 'Old Europe' of "smoke-and mirror and fear-mongering"? Gee,
it's beginning to sound like there's multilateral support against Iran.

Again/ I am not sure what new facts you're referring to. According to
the article, Iran has demanded that Europeans provide Iran with
nuclear technology and stop impediments to Iran's acquisition of same.
That's exactly what the NPT requires of the signatory nations.


Thelasian -

I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things:

The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that
the three European powers:
- Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced
technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and
know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications.
- "Remove impediments" — sales restrictions imposed by nuclear supplier
nations — preventing Iran access to such technology.


If the peace-loving people of Iran are only interested in civilian
nuclear power, they would not be asking for dual use technologies, nor
would the rest of the world (starting with France and Germany) be concerned:

But diplomats said Iran's demands undermine the effort by France,
Germany and Britain to avoid a confrontation. They had hoped to
persuade Tehran to give up technology that can produce nuclear arms,
but now are closer to the Bush administration's view that Iran should
be referred to the U.N. Security Council for violating the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, the diplomats said.


  #4  
Old August 11th 04, 04:20 AM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Willing to bet your life on it? Iran has a highly irresponsible government
with great potential for misusing nuclear weapons if they were to obtain
them. Given their large natural


Right,Unlike US,which has a highly responsible government that considers using
nuclear weapons only aganist non-nuclear powers,iresponsible Iranians might
consider using them aganist other nuclear powers.
  #5  
Old August 11th 04, 02:08 PM
Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Thelasian) wrote:

Steve Hix wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Thelasian) wrote:

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message
...
"...Proof:
UN clears Iran nuclear facility...."

Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein
while
closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during

the
1990s?

Oh, so the starving of IRaqi children was the UNs' fault and not the
fault of the USA??

False dilemma.

Blame the responsible party; Saddam Hussein and his cronies.


Anything but to blame the USA right?

Who backed and supported Saddam?


Do your homework. (It's really easy; after all, you have a computer at
hand.)

- Russia, first and foremost, gauged by their sales of tanks, aircraft,
artillery, smallarms, and ammunition for all of the above. (Unless you
can show that MiG, Sukhoi, Mil, and Kamov are American companies...)

- To a lesser degree, France, with some Dassault fighterbombers and
some army kit. France worked on their telecomm systems, too.


Don't forget that Iraq's nuclear facilities (promptly destroyed by Israel),
were built by France. In fact, Jaques Chirac personally hosted Saddam in
France, brokered the deal himself, then toured the facilites with Saddam
when they were completed.

If you ask me, Israel picked the wrong day to bomb.


Down in the noise level: Germany, U.S., Britain, and a few other
countries sold them gear up through the mid-80s. Take a look at the
composition of the Iraqi military forces up until Desert Storm.

No, Saddam & Cie. are fully to blame for diverting billions of dollars
in funds specifically meant for food and medical material for Iraqi
people to building more and more palaces for himself and his pals.

Some people, including U.N. personnel benefitted from his largesse at
the same time.



  #6  
Old August 11th 04, 03:02 PM
Stop SPAM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thelasian wrote:
Stop SPAM wrote in message ...
Thelasian -

I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things:

The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that
the three European powers:
- Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced
technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and
know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications.


YEs, and since all nuclear technology is inherently dual use, all that
means is that Iran insist on its RIGHT to receive all the technology
and not just the ones that the EU3 thinks is safe enough to give
away.


Thelasian -

I suggest you learn a bit more about nuclear technology before you
embarrass yourself further.

All nuclear technology is not "inherently" dual use. There are many
nuclear reactor designs that cannot be used for weapons use; reactors
that run on low grade fuel come to mind. Both the USSR and the US export
such designs and equipment to countries truly looking for peaceful uses
of nuclear power. Without reprocessing or extraction plants (which do
utilize dual use technology) such a low grade reactor is not dual use,
and with an outside country swapping fuel loads as needed there is no
need for any in-country dual use technology.

So why is Iran insisting it needs dual use nuclear technology when, if
all it wants is peaceful nukes, it could go with non-dual use technology?

Go back, read something reasonable about nuclear technology, and then
come back and post.

Until then, quit posting factually wildly incorrect statements such as
"all nuclear technology is inherently dual use".



  #7  
Old August 11th 04, 04:44 PM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Willing to bet your life on it? Iran has a highly irresponsible

government
with great potential for misusing nuclear weapons if they were to obtain
them. Given their large natural


Right,Unlike US,which has a highly responsible government that considers

using
nuclear weapons only aganist non-nuclear powers,iresponsible Iranians

might
consider using them aganist other nuclear powers.


I pity anyone who tries to pretend there is some equivalence between the
governments of Iran and the United States. If you start really believe
that, you are so far behind the curve as to make meaningful discussion
impossible.

Jarg


  #8  
Old August 11th 04, 05:53 PM
William Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
I pity anyone who tries to pretend there is some equivalence between the
governments of Iran and the United States. If you start really believe
that, you are so far behind the curve as to make meaningful discussion


Thats the real politics,the countries without nuclear weapons get

occupied and
colonized,but the ones with nuclear weapons,even if they have only a

couple of
of them,treated with soft gloves.


Right up until they use one.


  #9  
Old August 11th 04, 08:50 PM
Thelasian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stop SPAM wrote in message ...
Thelasian wrote:
Stop SPAM wrote in message ...
Thelasian -

I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things:

The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that
the three European powers:
- Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced
technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and
know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications.

YEs, and since all nuclear technology is inherently dual use, all that
means is that Iran insist on its RIGHT to receive all the technology
and not just the ones that the EU3 thinks is safe enough to give
away.


Thelasian -

I suggest you learn a bit more about nuclear technology before you
embarrass yourself further.



Don't presume so much.


All nuclear technology is not "inherently" dual use. There are many
nuclear reactor designs that cannot be used for weapons use;



This is true. However, if someone is hellbent on characterizing
something as "could be used to make nukes" then ANY technology is
'dual use'
Someone could say with a straight face that my pocket calcular "could
be used to make nuclear weapons" - and they'd be right.
So even proliferation-proof reactors can be maligned this way - they
could argue that the fuel for the reactors "could be used to make a
dirty nuke".

That's the problem with the US accusations against Iran - we are told
that Iran's civilian ligh****er reactor "Could be used to make nukes"
and so could the uranium enrichment facilities. Sure, it "could" but
so could my pocket calculator.

Anyway do you see anyone sharing the proliferation proof technology
with Iran? Nope. So what's Iran supposed to do?


that run on low grade fuel come to mind.


Actually, Iran's ligh****er reactor does indeed run on low-grade fuel.
However, according to several sources, even that lowgrade fuel "could
be" used to make nuclear weapons . . .

Both the USSR and the US export
such designs and equipment to countries truly looking for peaceful uses
of nuclear power. Without reprocessing or extraction plants (which do
utilize dual use technology) such a low grade reactor is not dual use,



So you're saying that even the proliferation proof technology CAN BE
dual use, right? After all, the fuel has to be reprocessed. It can't
just disappear.


and with an outside country swapping fuel loads as needed there is no
need for any in-country dual use technology.



Unless that country doesn't want to have be reliant on the foreign
country for its energy needs.



So why is Iran insisting it needs dual use nuclear technology when, if
all it wants is peaceful nukes, it could go with non-dual use technology?



That's sort of like asking why doesn't the USA just buy all of its oil
from OPEC instead of pumping its own oil.

Because Iran doesn't want to be reliant on a foreign cartel to provide
its nuclear energy. And because it is Iran's fundamental right to have
access to the technology.

Look, the best way to control the technology is through
joint-ventures. Iran would be happy to allow that. But the USA is
saying "No way - no nuclear technology AT ALL" - and that's just not
going to fly. You can't stick the toothpaste it back into the tube.


Go back, read something reasonable about nuclear technology, and then
come back and post.

Until then, quit posting factually wildly incorrect statements such as
"all nuclear technology is inherently dual use".


All nuclear technology is inherently dual use, especially because it
can be CHARACTERIZED as such.

Heck the US even objects to Iran gaining access to the lowest-level,
safest nuclear technology because it COULD provide Iranians with the
knowledge to one day POSSIBLY build nukes. And so could my pocket
calculator.
  #10  
Old August 12th 04, 12:05 AM
Stop SPAM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thelasian wrote:
Sure, it "could" but so could my pocket calculator.


If you're going to make specious arguments that LWRs (and your pocket
calculator) can be considered as dual-use technology, then, once again,
you don't know the internationally accepted definitions of "dual use"
(go read the IAEA's site, for example) and there's no use arguing with
ignorance.

And because it is Iran's fundamental right to have access to the technology.


If you believe in this statement, then I believe in the statement that
it is the right and responsibility of the rest of the world - through
the UN and the IAEA, in this case - to deny that 'right' to countries
believed to be too unstable (which, yes, I'd like to see NK added - but
the example of NK just goes to prove the point it's far easier to stop a
country before it has any than after). And note from my original post
that France, Germany & Britian are unhappy, not just the USA, so no US
bashing in this case.

And might I inquire from what source or document this "fundamental
right" derives? I'm not aware of anything in the UN documents that
provides this "fundamental right" to all countries.

A country's "fundamental rights" end where it's actions or planned
actions concerns its neighboring countries (more broadly speaking in
this day and age than past) enough for them to act to counter it.

See, for example: "It has been argued here that Article 51 of the
Charter of the UN includes the customary international law right of
anticipatory self-defense... Israel acted within those limits... This
particular use of force constituted an appropriate application of the
right of anticipatory self-defense in international law." from
"Self-Defense in International Law: The Israeli Raid on the Iraqi
Nuclear Reactor", Timothy L. H. McCormack, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996, p.
302.

 




Thread Tools
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield Paul J. Adam Military Aviation 1 August 9th 04 08:29 PM
Libya Returns Nuclear Fuel to Russia Dav1936531 Military Aviation 3 March 17th 04 06:29 PM
Israel to Destroy Iran's Nuclear Power Plants Air Force Jayhawk Military Aviation 7 February 23rd 04 07:39 PM
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) Matt Wiser Military Aviation 25 January 17th 04 03:18 PM
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) Matt Wiser Military Aviation 0 December 7th 03 09:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.