Iran breaks IAEA seals to start UF6 plant

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: K1052
They have a large uranium enrichment program and nowhere (legally) to use what they enrich. Iran also attempted to hide the scale of the program from the IAEA.

The only reactor they have is covered by a fuel deal with Russia where the fuel is shipped in then out again when depleted. It will be a decade before any other reactor comes on line as they are only talking about the possibility of building more.

Purchasing refined reactor grade fuel from europe or Russia makes more sense anyway to avoid the costs involved in refinement infastructure. Even if they decided that they require domestic facilities why build them in bunkers and not discolse their existance to the IAEA?

This smells like a weapons program and everyone knows it.

Smells like =! having credible proof.

Building in bunkers...well what happened last time the pursued a nuclear reactor...that's right, Israel bombed it. Well let's spend billions to build more facilities right out in the open so they can be destroyed again.

The Bushehr reactor is above ground.

This indicates that for some reason the reactor that they have spent about 15 years and billions building is somehow less important than the gas centrifuge facility.

Odd logic that, unless....

Does an underground nuclear reactor exist in the world today? If so, it's probably not the easiest route for a fledgling nuclear nation to go. But smaller nuclear facilities, like enrichment and processing plants can be built underground with ease.

And again, Iran can build these things anywhere in their nation. They can build them underground, above ground, on top of spaghetti, wherever. Still doesn't mean they've breached the NPT, nor does it mean we have evidence supporting that they have or they plan to.

So far, the Bush support crew is batting 0.00 and we're batting 1.00. It was the same situation in 2003. You = Iraq is a threat and they have stockpiles of WMDs. Us = Iraq is not a threat and they have no stockpiles.

I don't think we have another 150,000 troops or $200 billion to go after Iran, but anything is possible nowadays.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

So far, the Bush support crew is batting 0.00 and we're batting 1.00. It was the same situation in 2003.

Who exactly is "us?" The kids who read their intelligence reports on the Internet and Mother Jones? I am sort of confused how you know more than 20+ Democratic Senators who get secret briefings on these things. Again, who is "us?"

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: jpeyton

So far, the Bush support crew is batting 0.00 and we're batting 1.00. It was the same situation in 2003.

Who exactly is "us?" The kids who read their intelligence reports on the Internet and Mother Jones? I am sort of confused how you know more than 20+ Democratic Senators who get secret briefings on these things. Again, who is "us?"

You know what's even more confusing? How the largest military/intelligence budget in the world couldn't buy the US a single WMD or "imminent" threat during the 2 years we've occupied Iraq.

Intelligence is easy to cook, especially when you have "yes" men lining your agencies and a course of action looking for a cause, instead of the other way around.

Iran hasn't restarted the actual enrichment of UF-6 gas to fissible material, but when they do I expect something to break. Bush is too full of himself to back down to a member of the Axis of Evil.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You know what's even more confusing? How the largest military/intelligence budget in the world couldn't buy the US a single WMD or "imminent" threat during the 2 years we've occupied Iraq.

Intelligence is easy to cook, especially when you have "yes" men lining your agencies and a course of action looking for a cause, instead of the other way around.

Iran hasn't restarted the actual enrichment of UF-6 gas to fissible material, but when they do I expect something to break. Bush is too full of himself to back down to a member of the Axis of Evil.

Translation: I have no idea who "us" refers to, but it sure sounded good when I typed it. I will therefore avoid your very specific question and rant about 'cooking intelligence,' though the 'cooked intelligence' originated in the 90's under the previous administration, which is why more than 20+ Democrats have publicly stated that Saddam had WMDs before Bush came to power.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: K1052
They have a large uranium enrichment program and nowhere (legally) to use what they enrich. Iran also attempted to hide the scale of the program from the IAEA.

The only reactor they have is covered by a fuel deal with Russia where the fuel is shipped in then out again when depleted. It will be a decade before any other reactor comes on line as they are only talking about the possibility of building more.

Purchasing refined reactor grade fuel from europe or Russia makes more sense anyway to avoid the costs involved in refinement infastructure. Even if they decided that they require domestic facilities why build them in bunkers and not discolse their existance to the IAEA?

This smells like a weapons program and everyone knows it.

Smells like =! having credible proof.

Building in bunkers...well what happened last time the pursued a nuclear reactor...that's right, Israel bombed it. Well let's spend billions to build more facilities right out in the open so they can be destroyed again.

The Bushehr reactor is above ground.

This indicates that for some reason the reactor that they have spent about 15 years and billions building is somehow less important than the gas centrifuge facility.

Odd logic that, unless....

Does an underground nuclear reactor exist in the world today? If so, it's probably not the easiest route for a fledgling nuclear nation to go. But smaller nuclear facilities, like enrichment and processing plants can be built underground with ease.

And again, Iran can build these things anywhere in their nation. They can build them underground, above ground, on top of spaghetti, wherever. Still doesn't mean they've breached the NPT, nor does it mean we have evidence supporting that they have or they plan to.

So far, the Bush support crew is batting 0.00 and we're batting 1.00. It was the same situation in 2003. You = Iraq is a threat and they have stockpiles of WMDs. Us = Iraq is not a threat and they have no stockpiles.

I don't think we have another 150,000 troops or $200 billion to go after Iran, but anything is possible nowadays.

The Natanz facility is about 100,000 sq. meters in size and will house thousands of centrifuges, not all that small.

I refuted your logic about why they built it underground (without telling the IAEA until news of it's existence leaked out) and now you are changing the subject to Iraq and labeling me a Bush supporter.

The IAEA considers this a serious issue, why don't you?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: K1052
They have a large uranium enrichment program and nowhere (legally) to use what they enrich. Iran also attempted to hide the scale of the program from the IAEA.

The only reactor they have is covered by a fuel deal with Russia where the fuel is shipped in then out again when depleted. It will be a decade before any other reactor comes on line as they are only talking about the possibility of building more.

Purchasing refined reactor grade fuel from europe or Russia makes more sense anyway to avoid the costs involved in refinement infastructure. Even if they decided that they require domestic facilities why build them in bunkers and not discolse their existance to the IAEA?

This smells like a weapons program and everyone knows it.

Smells like =! having credible proof.

Building in bunkers...well what happened last time the pursued a nuclear reactor...that's right, Israel bombed it. Well let's spend billions to build more facilities right out in the open so they can be destroyed again.

The Bushehr reactor is above ground.

This indicates that for some reason the reactor that they have spent about 15 years and billions building is somehow less important than the gas centrifuge facility.

Odd logic that, unless....

Does an underground nuclear reactor exist in the world today? If so, it's probably not the easiest route for a fledgling nuclear nation to go. But smaller nuclear facilities, like enrichment and processing plants can be built underground with ease.

And again, Iran can build these things anywhere in their nation. They can build them underground, above ground, on top of spaghetti, wherever. Still doesn't mean they've breached the NPT, nor does it mean we have evidence supporting that they have or they plan to.

So far, the Bush support crew is batting 0.00 and we're batting 1.00. It was the same situation in 2003. You = Iraq is a threat and they have stockpiles of WMDs. Us = Iraq is not a threat and they have no stockpiles.

I don't think we have another 150,000 troops or $200 billion to go after Iran, but anything is possible nowadays.

The Natanz facility is about 100,000 sq. meters in size and will house thousands of centrifuges, not all that small.

I refuted your logic about why they built it underground (without telling the IAEA until news of it's existence leaked out) and now you are changing the subject to Iraq and labeling me a Bush supporter.

The IAEA considers this a serious issue, why don't you?

To be honest, I think we should keep our noses out of Middle East. If the IAEA thinks this is a "threat", then I'm sure Iran will enjoy getting a slap on the hand from the U.N.

If this turns into a military conflict, I just don't see how our nation will be able to sustain it with waning public support, an overstretched military, and no international support.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of ASSumptions in this thread. Let me know if you can disprove any of these points:

1) Iran has stated their nuclear program will only be used for peaceful purposes.

2) Iran's nuclear program is partly homegrown, and they have recieved help from nuclear powers such as China and Russia.

3) Iran has not violated any part of the NPT, nor have they made plans to. The NPT gives nations the right to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel.

4) We have no intelligence that suggests Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

5) By crying wolf with Iraq, the US Intelligence Community has lost credibility in the world stage, making their proposed actions with the U.N. a non-issue for Iran. Short of having a "smoking gun", the U.S. words will not have the weight needed to make a credible threat to Iran.

6) Because Russia and China have aided Iran with their nuclear program, and because Russia and China both have veto power in the U.N. Security Council, the threat of action against Iran is VERY small.

7) The threat of sanctions is a non-issue for Iran, who have learned to live with sanctions for decades.

8) Iran's ruling hard-liner government AND reformist groups BOTH support the development of the nuclear program...their country is united behind this single effort.

:thumbsup: to Iran for sticking it to the US government. We have no right to be the world's policeman, especially after Iraq.

I don't see how the Euros or the US is going to make Iran stop their nuclear program short of major financial incentives for their country.

If the US tries to start a military conflict with Iran, they will have to do so unilaterally; there is no way the UK is going to touch this one with a ten foot pole.

If the US bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, that is a declaration of war, and things will go south quickly in the region (Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan being neighbors). Not exactly an ideal situation for our troops. If you think losing 4 troops per day in Iraq is bad, keep in mind Iran's military is better equipped than Iraq ever was, and it isn't lined with deserters.

If Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, the current stalemate with Palestine will dissolve, Israel will get bombed heavily, and both sides will lose out.

How about we use our fvcking heads in this situation?

Let Iran build their plant. Let the IAEA continue to put up cameras and monitor Iran's activities. Let Iran pursue nuclear power as long as it stays within the bounds of the NPT.

If Iran ever goes astray, at least we'll have the worldwide support needed to mount a successful diplomatic or military action against Iran.

If we rush to judgement again, like we did with Iraq, we will create a world of problems.

Wow, you've convinced me except for the part about why one of the world's richest OIL countries needs power from another source. Hmm, the only other reason I could see a country building nuclear facilities, other than for power, is for weaponry.

So, AFTER they've built a nuclear weapon and mounted it on a ballistic missile, we can go in and take military action against them? You aren't very bright, are you?

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

If this turns into a military conflict, I just don't see how our nation will be able to sustain it with waning public support, an overstretched military, and no international support.

Since you decided to dodge my question yet again, I'll ask you an easier one: Did you get this piece of intel from your MIB [Military Internet Briefing]?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Wow, you've convinced me except for the part about why one of the world's richest OIL countries needs power from another source. Hmm, the only other reason I could see a country building nuclear facilities, other than for power, is for weaponry.

So, AFTER they've built a nuclear weapon and mounted it on a ballistic missile, we can go in and take military action against them? You aren't very bright, are you?

So what would be a bright idea? Build your nation's power grid around fossil fuels, which are expected to become a rarity halfway into this century? Then at the last minute, spend a DECADE building a nuclear power plant while your country suffers with limited power production capabilities?

Actually, wait, isn't that what the US strategy is? Brilliant!

No you're absolutely right, there is no reason these countries should pursue a clean, renewable source of energy when they can keep burning oil until it runs out. :roll:

Iran will be the first, but expect A LOT of other nations to pursue nuclear power in the next few decades.

And point out the part of the NPT, or any international treaty or law, that says Iran cannot produce their own nuclear fuel, and I'll gladly eat my words. Or produce any evidence that Iran is producing nuclear weapons, and again I will gladly eat my words.

Are the lives of thousands of soldiers and $200 billion dollars worth starting another war with a country that has done nothing wrong?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: jpeyton

If this turns into a military conflict, I just don't see how our nation will be able to sustain it with waning public support, an overstretched military, and no international support.

Since you decided to dodge my question yet again, I'll ask you an easier one: Did you get this piece of intel from your MIB [Military Internet Briefing]?

Yep.

Kthxbye.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

So what would be a bright idea? Build your nation's power grid around fossil fuels, which are expected to become a rarity halfway into this century? Then at the last minute, spend a DECADE building a nuclear power plant while your country suffers with limited power production capabilities?

Actually, wait, isn't that what the US strategy is? Brilliant!

Why do you think it's been three decades since we were allowed to build a new facility? You didn't get the memo?

[edit] decade(s)

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lots of ASSumptions in this thread. Let me know if you can disprove any of these points:

1) Iran has stated their nuclear program will only be used for peaceful purposes.

2) Iran's nuclear program is partly homegrown, and they have recieved help from nuclear powers such as China and Russia.

3) Iran has not violated any part of the NPT, nor have they made plans to. The NPT gives nations the right to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel.

4) We have no intelligence that suggests Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

5) By crying wolf with Iraq, the US Intelligence Community has lost credibility in the world stage, making their proposed actions with the U.N. a non-issue for Iran. Short of having a "smoking gun", the U.S. words will not have the weight needed to make a credible threat to Iran.

6) Because Russia and China have aided Iran with their nuclear program, and because Russia and China both have veto power in the U.N. Security Council, the threat of action against Iran is VERY small.

7) The threat of sanctions is a non-issue for Iran, who have learned to live with sanctions for decades.

8) Iran's ruling hard-liner government AND reformist groups BOTH support the development of the nuclear program...their country is united behind this single effort.

:thumbsup: to Iran for sticking it to the US government. We have no right to be the world's policeman, especially after Iraq.

I don't see how the Euros or the US is going to make Iran stop their nuclear program short of major financial incentives for their country.

If the US tries to start a military conflict with Iran, they will have to do so unilaterally; there is no way the UK is going to touch this one with a ten foot pole.

If the US bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, that is a declaration of war, and things will go south quickly in the region (Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan being neighbors). Not exactly an ideal situation for our troops. If you think losing 4 troops per day in Iraq is bad, keep in mind Iran's military is better equipped than Iraq ever was, and it isn't lined with deserters.

If Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, the current stalemate with Palestine will dissolve, Israel will get bombed heavily, and both sides will lose out.

How about we use our fvcking heads in this situation?

Let Iran build their plant. Let the IAEA continue to put up cameras and monitor Iran's activities. Let Iran pursue nuclear power as long as it stays within the bounds of the NPT.

If Iran ever goes astray, at least we'll have the worldwide support needed to mount a successful diplomatic or military action against Iran.

If we rush to judgement again, like we did with Iraq, we will create a world of problems.

Wow, you've convinced me except for the part about why one of the world's richest OIL countries needs power from another source. Hmm, the only other reason I could see a country building nuclear facilities, other than for power, is for weaponry.

So, AFTER they've built a nuclear weapon and mounted it on a ballistic missile, we can go in and take military action against them? You aren't very bright, are you?

What about diversification? Oil is a non-regenerative energy ressource and they depend on it. You present a weak argument in my opinion, until of course you borrow me your time machine...

The international controls (and foreign intelligence services) are there to inform the world BEFORE Iran has a nuclear warhead.

Of course there is no 100% security. But the European "G3" and the USA seem to take this issue seriously and Iran seems to be somewhat open to diplomatic efforts, so I admit, I'm fairly optimistic. (Compare the constellation with the India/Pakistan case where nobody really cared about new nuclear powers, or with North Korea which is isolationist and untrustworty)

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: jpeyton

So what would be a bright idea? Build your nation's power grid around fossil fuels, which are expected to become a rarity halfway into this century? Then at the last minute, spend a DECADE building a nuclear power plant while your country suffers with limited power production capabilities?

Actually, wait, isn't that what the US strategy is? Brilliant!

Why do you think it's been a decade since we were allowed to build a new facility? You didn't get the memo?

The US power grid is based largely off fossil fuels. For a new nuclear nation, it takes a decade to build a plant from scratch; for the US, who already has a small number of plants, it would take a few years to build one.

Europe has a large number of nuclear power plants and they are doing fine.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Europe has a large number of nuclear power plants and they are doing fine.

...then please forward that intel to the DNC and the Democrats who are always voting against building more nuclear power plants.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Europe has a large number of nuclear power plants and they are doing fine.

...then please forward that intel to the DNC and the Democrats who are always voting against building more nuclear power plants.

Not wanting nuclear plants is a stigma for the entire country. NIMBY is a mainstay of American society; everyone thinks they can continue as normal with no consequences.

Hopefully the rising oil prices will wake people up, Dems and Pugs alike.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Not wanting nuclear plants is a stigma for the entire country. NIMBY is a mainstay of American society; everyone thinks they can continue as normal with no consequences.

Hopefully the rising oil prices will wake people up, Dems and Pugs alike.

I won't disagree with that; it's nice to see that we agree that we should of built more facilities long ago after 3-mile Island. The people from CA who complian about brown/black outs and exacerbated costs, then oppose construction, make me laugh.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

So far, the Bush support crew is batting 0.00 and we're batting 1.00. It was the same situation in 2003.

Oh, and before people misconstrue our newfound agreement as a love fest, who exactly is "us" again? 🙂

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: jpeyton

So far, the Bush support crew is batting 0.00 and we're batting 1.00. It was the same situation in 2003.

Oh, and before people misconstrue our newfound agreement as a love fest, who exactly is "us" again? 🙂

Anti-Iraq War Crowd

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Europe has a large number of nuclear power plants and they are doing fine.

...then please forward that intel to the DNC and the Democrats who are always voting against building more nuclear power plants.

Cite? There is no law against building new nuke plants. Private investors simply don't want to risk the money, period.

 

[EyeMNathan]

I predict the US will wait for the UN to start this one.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Genx87-

"Letting a nation that openly funds a terrorist organization have nuclear weapons is a recipe for disaster."

I take it you're probably not referring to thhe US and the Contras, or the US and the Salvadoran death squads, or even the US and Colombian Rightwing paramilitaries, probably not the US and the Afghan Mujahedin either, right?

Not to mention that the Bushistas' rhetoric virtually demands nuclear proliferation- they need enemies to further their "Us vs Them" domestic agenda, to froth up public opinion in favor of their world hegemony agenda. This just shows that they'll go to any lengths to achieve that, w/o regard for the consequences.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Not to mention that the Bushistas' rhetoric virtually demands nuclear proliferation- they need enemies to further their "Us vs Them" domestic agenda, to froth up public opinion in favor of their world hegemony agenda. This just shows that they'll go to any lengths to achieve that, w/o regard for the consequences.

The start of efforts to obtain nuclear weapons in these countries predates the Bush administration.

The North Koreans very effectively pulled the wool over the Clinton admin's eyes and they are now a nuclear power as a result.

 

[Jhhnn]

From K1052-

"The North Koreans very effectively pulled the wool over the Clinton admin's eyes and they are now a nuclear power as a result."

There is, in truth, absolutely no real evidence whatsoever to support that contention, other than anonymous innuendo. Various intelligence sources claim that they think the DPRK might have had a few nukes prior to Kelley's grandstanding accusations, which merely improved the likelihood of that happening.

Put yourself in the other guys' shoes, think about how any nuclear capable nation would react to the Admin's extremely aggressive posturing against them, particularly in the wake of the Iraqi invasion... It's a no-brainer, unfortunately. The only thing the Bush Admin respects is power. If you don't have it, better get it, or they'll be coming after you next...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From K1052-

"The North Koreans very effectively pulled the wool over the Clinton admin's eyes and they are now a nuclear power as a result."

There is, in truth, absolutely no real evidence whatsoever to support that contention, other than anonymous innuendo. Various intelligence sources claim that they think the DPRK might have had a few nukes prior to Kelley's grandstanding accusations, which merely improved the likelihood of that happening.

Put yourself in the other guys' shoes, think about how any nuclear capable nation would react to the Admin's extremely aggressive posturing against them, particularly in the wake of the Iraqi invasion... It's a no-brainer, unfortunately. The only thing the Bush Admin respects is power. If you don't have it, better get it, or they'll be coming after you next...

NK has openly stated that they have a nuke weapon program. It takes 5-10 years to built a nuke just for power, let alone one that then has to be enhanced for weapons programs.

That is not something that gets developed in a couple of years.
Their nuke program was started long before the current admin came on the scene.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Building in bunkers...well what happened last time the pursued a nuclear reactor...that's right, Israel bombed it. Well let's spend billions to build more facilities right out in the open so they can be destroyed again.

When did Israel ever attack Iran? Assuming that they is who you mean by the