Iran's nuclear program

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

YEs, and since all nuclear technology is inherently dual use,

Stop right there.

Go back and get a refund from your physics instructors.

Don't wait around, get going.

See, if you had actually kept up with the FACTS of what's going on,
then you'd agree too: ANY nuclear technology is "dual use" because ANY
nuclear technology can be SPIN-DOCTORED and MISCHARACTERIZED as "dual
use" because any technology "could be used to make nukes". That's why
the Iranians specifically insist on their RIGHT according to the NPT
to have access to all civilian nuclear technology, whether the US
claims that the technology in question as "dual use" or not, because
they know the old "could be used to make nukes" claim is just a
pretext to deprive Iran of its legal "inalienable" rights.

The US has said, for example, that a light-water reactor that is under
IAEA safeguards and has received the IAEA's OK should not exist in
Iran because it "could be used to make nuclear weapons" - why? Not
because the reactor is a heavy water reactor that produces plutonium -
nope. Not because it produces the right isotope - nope. But because,
(According to the USA) the light-water reactor which has received the
OK of the IAEA COULD BE used to train technologists who COULD use
their knowledge to POSSIBLY build nuclear weapons - and so no Iranian
should ever have any nuclear technology.

See, how technology that the IAEA ITSELF says is safe can be
characterized as "dual use"? That's my point. If you buy into that
line of argument, then ANYTHING "could be used to make nukes." My
pocket calculator "Could be used to make nukes" Learning calculas
"could be used to make nukes"

Get it?

Oh, do try to keep up.

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(Thelasian) wrote in
m:

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...
"Thelasian" wrote in message
m...

Not a bad idea, they are one of the worst governments left on the
planet!


Except for say Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Israel, and lots of other
US-allied repressive racist tyrannies....


First, I said one of the worst.. Second, the government of Israel,
though not without flaws, is orders of magnitude better than that of
Iran,


Yes, and I am sure the 6 million Palestinians who were driven out of
their homes and refused their rights under the Geneva Convention would
totally agree.

Uh,most of them left voluntarily,under advice from their Grand Mufti.

Brainwashed little parrot, do try to keep up: even Israeli historians
themselves don't shovel that **** any more about how the Palestinians
"voluntarily" left and so Israel is not responsible under
international law to allow them back. Have you read Benny Morris's
Righteous Victims or the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (if
not go to Amazon.com and do so)

In the meantime, read what Benny Morris had to say about it in his
interview with Ari Shavit, which appeared in Haaretz, where he admits
that ethnic cleansing occurred by Israel, and then being a good
Zionist, he tries to justify it as "breaking a few eggs":

Q According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were
perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in
others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of
arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they
are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot.
There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron
region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing
and killed anything that moved.

The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod
(250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no
unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes
were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which
nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the
north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram
[in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun,
Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram
there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people
against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who
took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they
received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the
population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished
for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered
up for the officers who did the massacres."

Q What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in
Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion
order. Is that right?

"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948,
the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in
writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population.
Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the
Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this
order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the
city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately
after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July
1948]."

Q Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a
deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer.
There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly
comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population]
transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership
understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what
is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is
created."

Q Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there
could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its
midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

Q I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would
not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to
evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state
would not have arisen here.

Q Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of
Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do
you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of
1948?

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification
for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions,
expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of
1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
You have to dirty your hands."

http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html




ISTR that there were not even 6 million original 'refugees' resulting from
the 1948 war.I believe you are counting those born in other countries
afterwards.Rather dishonest,IMO.



demonstrated by the relative freedom and prosperity its citizens
enjoy.

You mean JEWISH citizens. Even Arab citizens of Israel are widely
discriminated against in the JEWISH homeland.

Yeah,what ARAB country allows Jews to be in their legislature?
Israel has two "Palestinian" members in the Knesset.
Arabs in Israel are FAR freer and more prosperous than in any of the
neighboring Arab countries,supposedly their friends and supporters.
They expect Jews to allow them to live in Israel(which Israel does),but
will not let Jews live in Arab countries.

zalzon wrote in message ...
You seem to be missing the point. Iran's LWR at Bushehr HAS ALREADY
BEEN characterized as 'dual use' technlogy. That's why the US opposes
it.

Hi,
lets be honest here. Its not an issue of dual use equipment so much
as its pretty obvious Eyeran wants to build nuclear weapons with the
knowledge/equipment/material aquired from foreign

It was "pretty obvious" that Iraq had vatloads of anthrax too - did
you find any? Use your brain and don't be a sheep. The IAEA itself has
said that there'e no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

The US even doesn't say that Iran is working on a nuclear weapons
program. Rather the US says that Iran's nuclear program gives it the
CAPACITY to build nukes. But ANY nuclear program can be characterized
as that. Brazil has the CAPACITY to build nukes too.


(or local for that
matter) sources. Eyeran is signatory to the NPT which bars countries from
pursuing a nuclear weapons program in exchange for dual use nuclear
technology.

Eyeran has every right to develop its civil nuclear industry under the NPT
but as you I'm sure know, that isn't its only objective.

Its of course true that the world order, by human nature, is inherently
unfair. That nations seek to aquire n-weapons but seek to deny it to
others..etc.

Denyav twisted the electrons to say:
Manhatan Project was a colossal blunder,in March 1945 even the
termination of Project was in discussion.A miracle happened in April
they produced everything they needed within the days,the name of
miracle was the occupation of Thuringen Forest.

Strange that the Manhattan Project went from a "colossal blunder" to a
succcess in a small number of days, however it took the "Basic High
Explosive Research" group from June 1947 to October 1952 to create a
non-US implosion device ...

This despite having access to people who worked on the Manhattan
Project and access to the raw data from Manhattan Project[1].

[1] Not all of which necessarily came with the approval of the US
government!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Strange that the Manhattan Project went from a "colossal blunder" to a
succcess in a small number of days, however it took the "Basic High
Explosive Research" group from June 1947 to October 1952 to create a
non-US implosion device ...

Do you know how long did it take to complete non-US aircraft carrier HMS Ark
Royal even though her builders were extremely experienced and knowledgeable?

Maybe they should have imported the complete management team from Japan.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Strange that the Manhattan Project went from a "colossal blunder" to a
succcess in a small number of days, however it took the "Basic High
Explosive Research" group from June 1947 to October 1952 to create a
non-US implosion device ...

Do you know how long did it take to complete non-US aircraft carrier HMS
Ark
Royal even though her builders were extremely experienced and
knowledgeable?


Which one ?

Maybe they should have imported the complete management team from Japan.

They have not built a single carrier in the last
50 years.

Keith

Keith Willshaw twisted the electrons to say:
Do you know how long did it take to complete non-US aircraft carrier HMS
Ark Royal even though her builders were extremely experienced and
knowledgeable?
Which one ?

Presumably he means Ark Royal IV. Contract placed March '42, keel laid
May '43, launched in 1950 and commissioning for the first time in 1955.

The time through to 1945 is, of course, easily explainable - repairing
existing ships (and building smaller ships more likely to see service
during the war) was probably far more important ...

1945 through to 1950 is also pretty easy to explain, no particular need
for a brand new fleet carrier. Also carrier design was still evolving,
who wants to complete a carrier to a design that might be out-dated by
the time you've finished it?

So now I've answered that question, maybe Denyav can answer why he thinks
the Manhattan Project went from "failure" to success in days, whilst
creating a non-US implosion device took years? (Somehow I expect he
won't.)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
. ..
Keith Willshaw twisted the electrons to say:


Presumably he means Ark Royal IV. Contract placed March '42, keel laid
May '43, launched in 1950 and commissioning for the first time in 1955.

The time through to 1945 is, of course, easily explainable - repairing
existing ships (and building smaller ships more likely to see service
during the war) was probably far more important ...

1945 through to 1950 is also pretty easy to explain, no particular need
for a brand new fleet carrier. Also carrier design was still evolving,
who wants to complete a carrier to a design that might be out-dated by
the time you've finished it?


Work was suspended for that reason and for the simpler
one that there was no money to pay for it.

So now I've answered that question, maybe Denyav can answer why he thinks
the Manhattan Project went from "failure" to success in days, whilst
creating a non-US implosion device took years? (Somehow I expect he
won't.)

Keith

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:05:50 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

Rather the US says that Iran's nuclear program gives it the
CAPACITY to build nukes. But ANY nuclear program can be characterized
as that. Brazil has the CAPACITY to build nukes too.

Hi,
Such countries do not have a great amount of fossil fuels. For them
it makes economic sense to build nuclear reactors rather than to import
fossil fuels to build coal, oil or gas fired plants on a large scale. Of
course a nuclear weapons program could be coupled to their civilian
program but at the very least it raises no suspicion at first glance.

What justification is there for eyeran to persue electricity from nuclear
power which comes with a FAR higher economic (and political) opportunity
cost?

It was "pretty obvious" that Iraq had vatloads of anthrax too

That's a straw man argument, lets compare apples to apples.

It was pretty obvious that Saddam intended to build nuclear weapons with
his Osirak reactor. He himself admitted to it. When you see Eyeran,
Saudi Arabia, Venesuela, UAE ..etc building nuclear power plants, it is
for one reason only. And that is the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The only country that is a major net oil exporter and operates a large
number of nuclear power plants is Russia. Their reasons for
developing their extensive nuclear infrastructure despite the high
economic opportunity cost was for nuclear weapons (that despite their huge
gas and oil reserves). Electricity was treated as a byproduct by the USSR
until the country went bust.

Now here's a question for you :

Can you honestly say that Eyeran has no military intent whatsoever
attached to its nuclear program? Can you honestly say the sole purpose of
its nuclear program which is being pursued at great economic & political
cost is only for generating electricity and nothing more?

I'm not asking you to produce mounds of documents, denials or claims. A
simple yes or no answer will do.

Which one ?

4th one.


They have not built a single carrier in the last
50 years.

If they decided to built one they would probably need less than 16 years to
built on