Israel to Destroy Iran's Nuclear Power Plants

Oh give me a break...


On 19 Feb 2004 19:19:45 -0800, (Julious
Cesar) wrote:

by Jeff Hook

JERUSALEM - The first two of a new fleet of the most advanced F-16
fighter jets landed Thursday at an airbase in southern Israel. The
warplanes, the first of 102 to be paid for by U.S. taxpayers [at a
cost of $45 million each], represent the Israel lobby's single most
successful act of subversion in the history of the "Jewish State" - an
incredible $4.5 billion dollar blood-suck. The U.S. created the F-16I
specifically for the needs of the Israeli military. That is, to
destroy Irans nuclear power generating plants.

The story continues at:
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2133

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
(Julious Cesar)
wrote:

by Jeff Hook

JERUSALEM - The first two of a new fleet of
the most advanced F-16
fighter jets landed Thursday at an airbase
in southern Israel. The
warplanes, the first of 102 to be paid for
by U.S. taxpayers [at a
cost of $45 million each], represent the Israel
lobby's single most
successful act of subversion in the history
of the "Jewish State" - an
incredible $4.5 billion dollar blood-suck.
The U.S. created the F-16I
specifically for the needs of the Israeli
military. That is, to
destroy Irans nuclear power generating plants.

The story continues at:
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2133

What's this? Does "Der Sturmer" have a new website?
Gee, it seems Julius Streicher has come back from the dead.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Magnus Redin wrote in
:

Hi!

"raymond o'hara" writes:
destroying irans nukes is good .

Do you make any difference between the ordinary civilan power reactors
they are building and their most likely to exist nuclear weapons
program and its installations? I do not think it is one and the same.

Best regards,

Why would Iran need or want nuclear reactors for power generation,when they
burn off (waste) much of the natural gas produced by their oil wells?
They could produce electric power much easier,cheaper and cleanly with that
overabundance of gas that they have to burn up.With little waste
products,too.

To make nuclear weapons,that's why.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Hi!

Jim Yanik writes:
Why would Iran need or want nuclear reactors for power
generation,when they burn off (waste) much of the natural gas
produced by their oil wells? They could produce electric power much
easier,cheaper and cleanly with that overabundance of gas that they
have to burn up.With little waste products,too.

Do they still waste the gas? I have heard that it was done decades ago
and that Saudi Arabia now use most of the gas for electricity
production but I have no reliable source of statistics and no rumours
about Iran. Please share the data you have.

I am afraid it is only a matter of time before the gas wont be enough
when they get prosperous enough for wide spread air conditioning.

To make nuclear weapons,that's why.

I think they have a nuclear weapons program but all things nuclear are
not automatically a part of such a program.

When Sweden had a nuclear wepaons program in the 50:s and 60:s we
tried to have a dual use program using the same kind of reactors for
both electricity and plutonium manufacturing. It turned out to be
expensive, inefficient and the only full scale reactor had so bad
security margins that it never was started and that was roughly 40
years ago. At the same time the "Marviken" dual use nuclear powerplant
failed and the nuclear wepaons program were finally shut down due to
political reasons and assurance from NATO we built out first civilian
BWR reactor. It did share some things with the military program since
manny of the contractors were the same that had build "Marviken" and
had learnt some things on how NOT to do. Wonder what would have
happened if the Soviet union had declared us a threath and bombed our
BWR construction site to stop us from getting nuclear weapons?

Best regards,

--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

Magnus Redin wrote in
:

Hi!

Jim Yanik writes:
Why would Iran need or want nuclear reactors for power
generation,when they burn off (waste) much of the natural gas
produced by their oil wells? They could produce electric power much
easier,cheaper and cleanly with that overabundance of gas that they
have to burn up.With little waste products,too.

Do they still waste the gas? I have heard that it was done decades ago
and that Saudi Arabia now use most of the gas for electricity
production but I have no reliable source of statistics and no rumours
about Iran. Please share the data you have.

where's a gas pipeline to Saudi Arabia from Iran? Does it cross the Persian
Gulf??? It wouldn't go thru Iraq,that's for certain.
I suspect there is no such thing.

I am afraid it is only a matter of time before the gas wont be enough
when they get prosperous enough for wide spread air conditioning.

Air conditioning? LMAO.Iran is still building homes with mud brick.
They probably do not even have a power grid.

To make nuclear weapons,that's why.

I think they have a nuclear weapons program but all things nuclear are
not automatically a part of such a program.

When Sweden had a nuclear wepaons program in the 50:s and 60:s we
tried to have a dual use program using the same kind of reactors for
both electricity and plutonium manufacturing. It turned out to be
expensive, inefficient and the only full scale reactor had so bad
security margins that it never was started and that was roughly 40
years ago. At the same time the "Marviken" dual use nuclear powerplant
failed and the nuclear wepaons program were finally shut down due to
political reasons and assurance from NATO we built out first civilian
BWR reactor. It did share some things with the military program since
manny of the contractors were the same that had build "Marviken" and
had learnt some things on how NOT to do. Wonder what would have
happened if the Soviet union had declared us a threath and bombed our
BWR construction site to stop us from getting nuclear weapons?

Best regards,


Come on,get real.The difference between your country and Iran is VERY wide
with regards to threats to other countries.
You also don't have the natural energy resources that Iran does.
You have a stable government.Iran does not.
Iran supports and exports terrorism.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Hi!

Jim Yanik writes:
where's a gas pipeline to Saudi Arabia from Iran? Does it cross the
Persian Gulf??? It wouldn't go thru Iraq,that's for certain. I
suspect there is no such thing.

You misunderstand me, I have heard that Saudi arabia has stopped
wasting their gas and suspect that Iran has done likewise with their gas.

Air conditioning? LMAO.Iran is still building homes with mud brick.
They probably do not even have a power grid.

They do of course have a power grid but I do not know if it covers
their whole country. They are one of the most well educated and
industrialised nations in the region, they do for instance produce
small jet passanger aeroplanes. That makes it a very big thing for the
world community if they open up and get themselves a democrasy since
it is a fairly prosperous nation that will be good to trade and have
cultural exchange with. And its prosperity means a bigger disaster if
their theocracy keeps its grip on the power and get the people to
strongly support getting nuclear arms.

Come on,get real.The difference between your country and Iran is
VERY wide with regards to threats to other countries.
You also don't have the natural energy resources that Iran does.
You have a stable government.Iran does not.
Iran supports and exports terrorism.

True, true, true and true but I can still understand that they will be
realy mad if someone attacs their civilian infrastructure. That is
something that changes foreign policy and probably not for the better.
They have to acknowledge its existance if a secret military plutonium
reactor is bombed and it will make less of an outrage then an attac on
a visible, valuble but for their nuclear weapons program probably
completely irrelevant target. An attack on the civilian powerplant
gives the iranian hard liners a local PR victory, it is about as
relevant as bombing a refinery and gives no moral high ground and it
could be enough for some western politicans to proclaim that the
problem is solved.

Best regards,

--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

Magnus Redin wrote:
Hi!

"raymond o'hara" writes:
destroying irans nukes is good .

Do you make any difference between the ordinary
civilan power reactors
they are building and their most likely to exist
nuclear weapons
program and its installations? I do not think
it is one and the same.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin
och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING,
SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046
I believe that was the excuse the Iraqis had for the Osiriak reactor back
in '81. The Israeli AF did the world a favor back then. Although if necessary,
CENTAF and 5th Fleet with TLAM will do the job this time.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Magnus Redin wrote:
Hi!

How do you propose to do this? It's been shown
time and time again
attempting to monitor 'civilian' reactors
doesn't work. Iraq, Iran,
Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa, North
Korea - in which of
these cases was an attempt at monitoring civil
reactor successful at
stopping proliferation?

The monitoring has had 100% success in hindering
the monitored
reactors from being used for weapons manufacturing.
I do not claim
that monitoring the civilian facilities stops
proliferation, you have
to do more to assure that.

And in how many of these cases were the civilian
reactors actually
being used as part of the military nuclear
weapons program?

No civilian power producing reactors were used
as far as I know.
But I think some soviet plutonium producing
reactors have used the
excess heat generated, at least for district
heating. And the first
generation of UK magnox reactors might have
been designed for dual
use. But those were not among the countries
you listed, they built
their nucler weapons before any international
control systems and
before the economical implicatiosn of difefrent
designs were well
known.

And how do you propose to 'pressure' them?
Threaten sanctions by the
UN? That has worked soooo well in the past...
really stopped all the
nations listed above.

Treat them like south africa, that actually
worked, they have both
abandoned apartheid and scrapped their nuclear
weapons.

Carrot doesn't work. It has failed time and
time again. The UN is a
powerless, toothless organization who can
only pressure countries
that respond to pressure. Military dictatorships
and dictatorial
theocracies ignore international pressure
and do what they want.

I dont care about the regime, I am talking about
the people. The
Iranian, Iraqi, North Korean, etc people are
not evil, they need the
carrot. Dont give them a stick by striking civilian
assets.

I didn't notice Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya
responding to carrot.
Now that Afghanistan and Iraq were hit with
the stick Iran and Libya
are suddenly much more cooperative, and North
Korea is talking
(albeit sporadically).

And Libya is given some carrots now when they
are cooperating.
The North Korean leadership is quite mad, I
have no idea at all on
what would be wise to do there.

Best regards,

--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin
och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING,
SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046
North Korea? Those Stalinists are really flaky. Except for the UN delegation,
they have no idea how the rest of the world views them. When the NKs make
threats against the ROK, Japan, or even the U.S., they don't realize that
such threats don't bring respect, they bring contempt. And threats to sell
nuclear items elsewhere are likely to bring a "visit and search" blockade
to NK shipping, and any nuclear or missile material being seized. I do think
the NKs realize that if they ever do pop a missile with nuclear, chem, or
bio warheads against any target in WESTPAC, they will be nuked in retaliation
by the U.S. (at least that's the hope)

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!