Iran ready to share nuclear know-how with other Islamic countries!!!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Why the big-eyes? We share with our buds, why shouldn't Iran? The US would be a much heathier country if we would accept the fact that we don't run the world.


I believe in gun ownership. I do not believe it should be unqualified. Likewise, while I don't like nukes, so far the have only been used in Japan a few generations ago. Make no mistake, countries who want this technology want it for arms as much as anything else. The fact that our poor leadership has encouraged it does nothing to mitigate the literal fallout that could occur if these very dangerous "toys" become widespread.

If gun-ownership is important to you, then you have to know that any authority tasked with "qualifying" that ownership will eventually destroy the power to own guns. If you haven't already, read Jeffrey Snyder's "A nation of Cowards" I urge you to do just that. It's an eye opener about firearms in the land of the 2A.

As far as nukes, we agree, sort of. ;) Washington has indeed made nuclear munnitions the commodity of choice for smart countries. I don't agree that every nation that wants nuclear technology, and all the benefits that come along with it, are bent on producing nuclear weapons, though. The IAEA reports on Iran, as well as the additional protocols Iran has signed, indicate that the Iranians want nothing more than their soveriegn right to pursue technology as THEY see fit. This doesn't bother me one bit, because I want the US to have the same rights.

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: raildogg
Thank you Bush, thank you Europe and thank you others for letting this happen. But oh well, keep focusing your attention on Iraq while the biggest danger to the world goes unnoticed.

Why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons too?

Well, they freely agreed (by international treaty) not to for starters.

Yup, in exchange for help with peaceful nuclear technology from the existing nuclear powers, a clause which the US has refused to abide by. Moreover, Iran can withdraw from the NPT any time they want, with a 5-year notice. Remember, the NPT is a treaty, not international law. As far as I'm concerned, they'd be utterly stupid not to want their own nuclear deterent, considering the noises coming out of Washingtion and Tel Aviv.

I don't think the current rulers of Iran ever requested our help. They took their cash to the Europeans and Russians.

They didn't have to ask, and frankly I've never read anything that would indicate that they haven't asked. Our treaty obligation says we should have made this technology available. Let's not forget that during modern times (from 1953 to this very moment) Washington has done everything possible to make peaceful exchanges with Iran next to impossible. In fact, I'm still waiting to try some of those legendary Iranian pistachios. :)

Yes they do have to ask. No proof that they didn't ask does not equal proof that they did and were rebuffed. The government still has to approve export of such technology via a request from the private sector on their customer's (theoretically Iran in this case) behalf.

I?m not familiar enough with the minutiae of the NPT to say whether they have to ask or not, and obviously neither are you. Either way, whether they have to ask or not, doesn?t absolve the US of our responsibility, as a signatory of the NPT, to make said technology available and not create barriers to peaceful exchange (which is precisely what we do at every turn). Moreover, Washington doesn?t have to ?approve? or ?request? our sale of nuclear technology to the Iranians; the private sector is just itching to sell whatever it can. All that needs to happen is a cessation of sanctions against Iran which have been in place since 1979 or thereabouts.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,610
46,272
136
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: raildogg
Thank you Bush, thank you Europe and thank you others for letting this happen. But oh well, keep focusing your attention on Iraq while the biggest danger to the world goes unnoticed.

Why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons too?

Well, they freely agreed (by international treaty) not to for starters.

Yup, in exchange for help with peaceful nuclear technology from the existing nuclear powers, a clause which the US has refused to abide by. Moreover, Iran can withdraw from the NPT any time they want, with a 5-year notice. Remember, the NPT is a treaty, not international law. As far as I'm concerned, they'd be utterly stupid not to want their own nuclear deterent, considering the noises coming out of Washingtion and Tel Aviv.

I don't think the current rulers of Iran ever requested our help. They took their cash to the Europeans and Russians.

They didn't have to ask, and frankly I've never read anything that would indicate that they haven't asked. Our treaty obligation says we should have made this technology available. Let's not forget that during modern times (from 1953 to this very moment) Washington has done everything possible to make peaceful exchanges with Iran next to impossible. In fact, I'm still waiting to try some of those legendary Iranian pistachios. :)

Yes they do have to ask. No proof that they didn't ask does not equal proof that they did and were rebuffed. The government still has to approve export of such technology via a request from the private sector on their customer's (theoretically Iran in this case) behalf.

I?m not familiar enough with the minutiae of the NPT to say whether they have to ask or not, and obviously neither are you. Either way, whether they have to ask or not, doesn?t absolve the US of our responsibility, as a signatory of the NPT, to make said technology available and not create barriers to peaceful exchange (which is precisely what we do at every turn). Moreover, Washington doesn?t have to ?approve? or ?request? our sale of nuclear technology to the Iranians; the private sector is just itching to sell whatever it can. All that needs to happen is a cessation of sanctions against Iran which have been in place since 1979 or thereabouts.

Did US firms actively solicit Iran's business in the realm of peaceful nuclear technology? No, I am fairly certain they did not.

Did Iran attempt to aquire peacful nuclear technology from the US in exercise of their treaty rights? No, I am fairly certain they did not.

The US would be most interested in exporting light water reactors produced by GE and Westinghouse. Iran is predominantly interested in enrichment technology to fuel their non-existant reactor fleet.



 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is a soveriegn nation that has every right to pursue whatever the fvck national agenda they have. Nuclear power? Fine. Nuclear weapons? Not preferred, but we still can't do a bum fvcking thing about it. Sanctions? So what, they lived with sanctions for decades.

Everyone here is too dense to realize no government in the world would openly engage the US in military combat. Nuclear weapons or not, no country in the world is that stupid.

So nations like Iran and North Korea are not the real threat to the US. They will not commit suicide by attacking the US.

The real threat are the terrorists who live without a country, without a government, and have the capability to smuggle a foriegn nuke onto our soil. Hypothetically, if a terrorist smuggles a nuke using a German container ship, does that mean Germany is trying to start a war? Nope. Just means that a terrorist lived in Germany.

And the threat is that rather than attack us directly these rogue states will hand a nuke over to a terrorist organization to use against us thereby attacking us through a proxy. And your right, they have every right as a sovereign nation to build a nuclear weapon, and we have every right as a soveriegn nation to bomb them back to the stone age for doing so.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: raildogg
Thank you Bush, thank you Europe and thank you others for letting this happen. But oh well, keep focusing your attention on Iraq while the biggest danger to the world goes unnoticed.

Why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons too?

Well, they freely agreed (by international treaty) not to for starters.

Yup, in exchange for help with peaceful nuclear technology from the existing nuclear powers, a clause which the US has refused to abide by. Moreover, Iran can withdraw from the NPT any time they want, with a 5-year notice. Remember, the NPT is a treaty, not international law. As far as I'm concerned, they'd be utterly stupid not to want their own nuclear deterent, considering the noises coming out of Washingtion and Tel Aviv.

I don't think the current rulers of Iran ever requested our help. They took their cash to the Europeans and Russians.

They didn't have to ask, and frankly I've never read anything that would indicate that they haven't asked. Our treaty obligation says we should have made this technology available. Let's not forget that during modern times (from 1953 to this very moment) Washington has done everything possible to make peaceful exchanges with Iran next to impossible. In fact, I'm still waiting to try some of those legendary Iranian pistachios. :)

Yes they do have to ask. No proof that they didn't ask does not equal proof that they did and were rebuffed. The government still has to approve export of such technology via a request from the private sector on their customer's (theoretically Iran in this case) behalf.

I?m not familiar enough with the minutiae of the NPT to say whether they have to ask or not, and obviously neither are you. Either way, whether they have to ask or not, doesn?t absolve the US of our responsibility, as a signatory of the NPT, to make said technology available and not create barriers to peaceful exchange (which is precisely what we do at every turn). Moreover, Washington doesn?t have to ?approve? or ?request? our sale of nuclear technology to the Iranians; the private sector is just itching to sell whatever it can. All that needs to happen is a cessation of sanctions against Iran which have been in place since 1979 or thereabouts.

Did US firms actively solicit Iran's business in the realm of peaceful nuclear technology? No, I am fairly certain they did not.

Did Iran attempt to aquire peacful nuclear technology from the US in exercise of their treaty rights? No, I am fairly certain they did not.

The US would be most interested in exporting light water reactors produced by GE and Westinghouse. Iran is predominantly interested in enrichment technology to fuel their non-existant reactor fleet.

From what I understand, yes, the Iranians have sought nuclear know-how and equipment from US firms, on a bidding basis. Again, economic sanctions have made such exchanges impossible, and this I'm SURE of.

Iran has, under NPT statute, every right to master the fuel cycle. We should sell them what they want, not what we think they should to have. Isn't this the way commerce works? To use an analogy: If you wanted an 8-cylinder muscle car and Pontiac would only sell you a 4-cylinder beater, wouldn't you take you money elsewhere?



 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,610
46,272
136
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: raildogg
Thank you Bush, thank you Europe and thank you others for letting this happen. But oh well, keep focusing your attention on Iraq while the biggest danger to the world goes unnoticed.

Why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons too?

Well, they freely agreed (by international treaty) not to for starters.

Yup, in exchange for help with peaceful nuclear technology from the existing nuclear powers, a clause which the US has refused to abide by. Moreover, Iran can withdraw from the NPT any time they want, with a 5-year notice. Remember, the NPT is a treaty, not international law. As far as I'm concerned, they'd be utterly stupid not to want their own nuclear deterent, considering the noises coming out of Washingtion and Tel Aviv.

I don't think the current rulers of Iran ever requested our help. They took their cash to the Europeans and Russians.

They didn't have to ask, and frankly I've never read anything that would indicate that they haven't asked. Our treaty obligation says we should have made this technology available. Let's not forget that during modern times (from 1953 to this very moment) Washington has done everything possible to make peaceful exchanges with Iran next to impossible. In fact, I'm still waiting to try some of those legendary Iranian pistachios. :)

Yes they do have to ask. No proof that they didn't ask does not equal proof that they did and were rebuffed. The government still has to approve export of such technology via a request from the private sector on their customer's (theoretically Iran in this case) behalf.

I?m not familiar enough with the minutiae of the NPT to say whether they have to ask or not, and obviously neither are you. Either way, whether they have to ask or not, doesn?t absolve the US of our responsibility, as a signatory of the NPT, to make said technology available and not create barriers to peaceful exchange (which is precisely what we do at every turn). Moreover, Washington doesn?t have to ?approve? or ?request? our sale of nuclear technology to the Iranians; the private sector is just itching to sell whatever it can. All that needs to happen is a cessation of sanctions against Iran which have been in place since 1979 or thereabouts.

Did US firms actively solicit Iran's business in the realm of peaceful nuclear technology? No, I am fairly certain they did not.

Did Iran attempt to aquire peacful nuclear technology from the US in exercise of their treaty rights? No, I am fairly certain they did not.

The US would be most interested in exporting light water reactors produced by GE and Westinghouse. Iran is predominantly interested in enrichment technology to fuel their non-existant reactor fleet.

From what I understand, yes, the Iranians have sought nuclear know-how and equipment from US firms, on a bidding bases. Again, economic sanctions have made such exchanges impossible, and this I'm SURE of.

Iran has, under NPT statute, every right to master the fuel cycle. We should sell them what they want, not what we think they should to have. Isn't this the way commerce works? To use an analogy: If you wanted an 8-cylinder muscle car and Pontiac would only sell you a 4-cylinder beater, wouldn't you take you money elsewhere?

So I am right then? If the US firms decided not to bid on the contracts that is their business.

If Iran is so innocent in their intentions why did they clandestinely build enrichment facilities with parts and information supplied by Pakistan (a member not regulated by the IAEA)?

A better analogy would be a man going through great expense and pains to secretly build a gas tank for a car that dosen't exist and that he has no plans to build.

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is a soveriegn nation that has every right to pursue whatever the fvck national agenda they have. Nuclear power? Fine. Nuclear weapons? Not preferred, but we still can't do a bum fvcking thing about it. Sanctions? So what, they lived with sanctions for decades.

Everyone here is too dense to realize no government in the world would openly engage the US in military combat. Nuclear weapons or not, no country in the world is that stupid.

So nations like Iran and North Korea are not the real threat to the US. They will not commit suicide by attacking the US.

The real threat are the terrorists who live without a country, without a government, and have the capability to smuggle a foriegn nuke onto our soil. Hypothetically, if a terrorist smuggles a nuke using a German container ship, does that mean Germany is trying to start a war? Nope. Just means that a terrorist lived in Germany.

And the threat is that rather than attack us directly these rogue states will hand a nuke over to a terrorist organization to use against us thereby attacking us through a proxy. And your right, they have every right as a sovereign nation to build a nuclear weapon, and we have every right as a soveriegn nation to bomb them back to the stone age for doing so.

The "threat" you speak of is a manufactured one, designed to justify the sort of bald-faced hypocrisy that has permeated our dealings with other nations for the past 100+ years. Also, I think you're misunderstood the nature of sovereignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.

No where in these is there a clause that states "except in the case that the USA says otherwise." ;) Moreever, we have no right to nuke another country under anything but imminent threat. During the coldwar they called this "launch on warning."

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
So I am right then? If the US firms decided not to bid on the contracts that is their business.

If Iran is so innocent in their intentions why did they clandestinely build enrichment facilities with parts and information supplied by Pakistan (a member not regulated by the IAEA)?

A better analogy would be a man going through great expense and pains to secretly build a gas tank for a car that dosen't exist and that he has no plans to build.

Right? No. ;) US firms have, and WILL, bid on such things, if Washington would just get out of the way.

I didn't say they we innocent. What nation is? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time, which is something all nations do to some extent. The important thing is that the Iranians have satisfied their IAEA obligations, and are subject to their safeguards.

Sorry, your analogy doesn't work for me in context to what we're discussing. :)

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
If anyone's interested in the IAEA and the NPT, and wants a non-government approved, laymen's perspective on the subjects, google-up "Gordon Prather".
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,610
46,272
136
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
So I am right then? If the US firms decided not to bid on the contracts that is their business.

If Iran is so innocent in their intentions why did they clandestinely build enrichment facilities with parts and information supplied by Pakistan (a member not regulated by the IAEA)?

A better analogy would be a man going through great expense and pains to secretly build a gas tank for a car that dosen't exist and that he has no plans to build.

Right? No. ;) US firms have, and WILL, bid on such things, if Washington would just get out of the way.

I didn't say they we innocent. What nation is? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time, which is something all nations do to some extent. The important thing is that the Iranians have satisfied their IAEA obligations, and are subject to their safeguards.

Sorry, your analogy doesn't work for me in context to what we're discussing. :)

Yea, now that the IAEA actually knows about the enrichment facilities so they can inspect them.;)

Your analogy donsen't work for me either.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is a soveriegn nation that has every right to pursue whatever the fvck national agenda they have. Nuclear power? Fine. Nuclear weapons? Not preferred, but we still can't do a bum fvcking thing about it. Sanctions? So what, they lived with sanctions for decades.

Everyone here is too dense to realize no government in the world would openly engage the US in military combat. Nuclear weapons or not, no country in the world is that stupid.

So nations like Iran and North Korea are not the real threat to the US. They will not commit suicide by attacking the US.

The real threat are the terrorists who live without a country, without a government, and have the capability to smuggle a foriegn nuke onto our soil. Hypothetically, if a terrorist smuggles a nuke using a German container ship, does that mean Germany is trying to start a war? Nope. Just means that a terrorist lived in Germany.

If I wanted to attack the US with a nuclear weapon, I would do it by proxy, not directly.

Nuclear proliferation = bad.

You think it's getting bad after 9/11? Just wait till the nuke goes off, and it won't matter who did it, because they aren't going to take DNA samples or fingerprints off of nuclear dust.

Americans will be screaming at the top of their lungs for revenge, and they will get it. In spades. If it takes a billion lives, they will get it.

That is where you are dead wrong.

American's are very ignorant in this regard. They think that the nuclear stockpile exists to bomb other nations "into the stone age". It is quite embarrassing that you and rahvin know so little about how international politics work.

The US will never use nuclear weapons on a soveriegn nation unless they can prove that this nation directly attacked or aided in the attack of the United States AND that nation still poses a grave threat to the United States AND that nation cannot be defeated in a swift manner through the use of traditional non-nuclear weapons.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a unique situation. The US knew that the civilian population was largely ready to resist and die fighting a US invasion. Had we invaded without using nuclear weapons, those hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians would have died by our traditional bombs and bullets.

Fast forward to 2005. Our nation has military superiority over any country in the world. While we would obviously need the option of nuclear weapons when fighting a war with a nuclear nation, we don't need that option when fighting most others, including Iran.

Nuclear weapons do not exist for lopsided military conflicts. They are largely designed for destroying large population centers and infrastructure. If attacked by Iran, we would probably use a small nuke to destroy their underground nuclear weapons facilities, but we would gain nothing by bombing a civilian target like Tehran.

It's just so annoying that in EVERY SINGLE thread about nuclear weapons, you idiots chime in about nuking the middle east, killing billions of civilians, cowboy style justice, etc. You only prove your cluelessness with such comments.

Anyways, Iran can build whatever the hell they want. They are not bound by any UN treaties or resolutions. We cannot attack unless attacked. And they have no confirmed nuclear weapons. If they want to build them, they can. If they don't want to, they won't. But every industrialized nation will build nuclear power facilities this century, whether we help them or not. Iran has every right and I hope they exercise it to the fullest.

The US needs to shut the fvck up before it gets embarrassed on the world stage. Oh wait, too late, this country is already a joke all around the world.

To quote Bill Maher: "I'm Swiss".
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
So I am right then? If the US firms decided not to bid on the contracts that is their business.

If Iran is so innocent in their intentions why did they clandestinely build enrichment facilities with parts and information supplied by Pakistan (a member not regulated by the IAEA)?

A better analogy would be a man going through great expense and pains to secretly build a gas tank for a car that dosen't exist and that he has no plans to build.


Right? No. ;) US firms have, and WILL, bid on such things, if Washington would just get out of the way.

I didn't say they we innocent. What nation is? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time, which is something all nations do to some extent. The important thing is that the Iranians have satisfied their IAEA obligations, and are subject to their safeguards.

Sorry, your analogy doesn't work for me in context to what we're discussing. :)

Yea, now that the IAEA actually knows about the enrichment facilities so they can inspect them.;)

Your analogy donsen't work for me either.

Actually, the IAEA can go anywhere that want in Iran, and have done just that.

I'm sure if you'd read what I've said carefully you wouldl. Remember, you're the one who said that Washington might be willing to "allow" American firms to sell them a specifc type of reactor. Well, the NPT doesn't restrict them to a specific type of reactor. As long as they don't use the reactors' byproducts to produce nuclear weapons they're golden. My analogy works perfectly as long as we have a common frame of reference in terms of what the US can, or more importantly can't, demand of other nations. In this context my analogy is dead-on.

 

novon

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,711
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is a soveriegn nation that has every right to pursue whatever the fvck national agenda they have. Nuclear power? Fine. Nuclear weapons? Not preferred, but we still can't do a bum fvcking thing about it. Sanctions? So what, they lived with sanctions for decades.

Everyone here is too dense to realize no government in the world would openly engage the US in military combat. Nuclear weapons or not, no country in the world is that stupid.

So nations like Iran and North Korea are not the real threat to the US. They will not commit suicide by attacking the US.

The real threat are the terrorists who live without a country, without a government, and have the capability to smuggle a foriegn nuke onto our soil. Hypothetically, if a terrorist smuggles a nuke using a German container ship, does that mean Germany is trying to start a war? Nope. Just means that a terrorist lived in Germany.

If I wanted to attack the US with a nuclear weapon, I would do it by proxy, not directly.

Nuclear proliferation = bad.

You think it's getting bad after 9/11? Just wait till the nuke goes off, and it won't matter who did it, because they aren't going to take DNA samples or fingerprints off of nuclear dust.

Americans will be screaming at the top of their lungs for revenge, and they will get it. In spades. If it takes a billion lives, they will get it.

That is where you are dead wrong.

American's are very ignorant in this regard. They think that the nuclear stockpile exists to bomb other nations "into the stone age". It is quite embarrassing that you and rahvin know so little about how international politics work.

The US will never use nuclear weapons on a soveriegn nation unless they can prove that this nation directly attacked or aided in the attack of the United States AND that nation still poses a grave threat to the United States AND that nation cannot be defeated in a swift manner through the use of traditional non-nuclear weapons.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a unique situation. The US knew that the civilian population was largely ready to resist and die fighting a US invasion. Had we invaded without using nuclear weapons, those hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians would have died by our traditional bombs and bullets.

Fast forward to 2005. Our nation has military superiority over any country in the world. While we would obviously need the option of nuclear weapons when fighting a war with a nuclear nation, we don't need that option when fighting most others, including Iran.

Nuclear weapons do not exist for lopsided military conflicts. They are largely designed for destroying large population centers and infrastructure. If attacked by Iran, we would probably use a small nuke to destroy their underground nuclear weapons facilities, but we would gain nothing by bombing a civilian target like Tehran.

It's just so annoying that in EVERY SINGLE thread about nuclear weapons, you idiots chime in about nuking the middle east, killing billions of civilians, cowboy style justice, etc. You only prove your cluelessness with such comments.

Anyways, Iran can build whatever the hell they want. They are not bound by any UN treaties or resolutions. We cannot attack unless attacked. And they have no confirmed nuclear weapons. If they want to build them, they can. If they don't want to, they won't. But every industrialized nation will build nuclear power facilities this century, whether we help them or not. Iran has every right and I hope they exercise it to the fullest.

The US needs to shut the fvck up before it gets embarrassed on the world stage. Oh wait, too late, this country is already a joke all around the world.

To quote Bill Maher: "I'm Swiss".


Well said :thumbsup:
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,610
46,272
136
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
So I am right then? If the US firms decided not to bid on the contracts that is their business.

If Iran is so innocent in their intentions why did they clandestinely build enrichment facilities with parts and information supplied by Pakistan (a member not regulated by the IAEA)?

A better analogy would be a man going through great expense and pains to secretly build a gas tank for a car that dosen't exist and that he has no plans to build.


Right? No. ;) US firms have, and WILL, bid on such things, if Washington would just get out of the way.

I didn't say they we innocent. What nation is? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time, which is something all nations do to some extent. The important thing is that the Iranians have satisfied their IAEA obligations, and are subject to their safeguards.

Sorry, your analogy doesn't work for me in context to what we're discussing. :)

Yea, now that the IAEA actually knows about the enrichment facilities so they can inspect them.;)

Your analogy donsen't work for me either.

Actually, the IAEA can go anywhere that want in Iran, and have done just that.

I'm sure if you'd read what I've said carefully you wouldl. Remember, you're the one who said that Washington might be willing to "allow" American firms to sell them a specifc type of reactor. Well, the NPT doesn't restrict them to a specific type of reactor. As long as they don't use the reactors' byproducts to produce nuclear weapons they're golden. My analogy works perfectly as long as we have a common frame of reference in terms of what the US can, or more importantly can't, demand of other nations. In this context my analogy is dead-on.

The Iranians wern't exactly forthcoming about all their facilities until confronted.

Seeing as how light water (PWRs and BWRs) reactors are basically the only type we produce for electrical generation....

If they want a CANDU type hevy water moderated reactor they should talk to Canada or India. The Europeans and Russians also offer various other designs for export.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: novon
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is a soveriegn nation that has every right to pursue whatever the fvck national agenda they have. Nuclear power? Fine. Nuclear weapons? Not preferred, but we still can't do a bum fvcking thing about it. Sanctions? So what, they lived with sanctions for decades.

Everyone here is too dense to realize no government in the world would openly engage the US in military combat. Nuclear weapons or not, no country in the world is that stupid.

So nations like Iran and North Korea are not the real threat to the US. They will not commit suicide by attacking the US.

The real threat are the terrorists who live without a country, without a government, and have the capability to smuggle a foriegn nuke onto our soil. Hypothetically, if a terrorist smuggles a nuke using a German container ship, does that mean Germany is trying to start a war? Nope. Just means that a terrorist lived in Germany.

If I wanted to attack the US with a nuclear weapon, I would do it by proxy, not directly.

Nuclear proliferation = bad.

You think it's getting bad after 9/11? Just wait till the nuke goes off, and it won't matter who did it, because they aren't going to take DNA samples or fingerprints off of nuclear dust.

Americans will be screaming at the top of their lungs for revenge, and they will get it. In spades. If it takes a billion lives, they will get it.

That is where you are dead wrong.

American's are very ignorant in this regard. They think that the nuclear stockpile exists to bomb other nations "into the stone age". It is quite embarrassing that you and rahvin know so little about how international politics work.

The US will never use nuclear weapons on a soveriegn nation unless they can prove that this nation directly attacked or aided in the attack of the United States AND that nation still poses a grave threat to the United States AND that nation cannot be defeated in a swift manner through the use of traditional non-nuclear weapons.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a unique situation. The US knew that the civilian population was largely ready to resist and die fighting a US invasion. Had we invaded without using nuclear weapons, those hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians would have died by our traditional bombs and bullets.

Fast forward to 2005. Our nation has military superiority over any country in the world. While we would obviously need the option of nuclear weapons when fighting a war with a nuclear nation, we don't need that option when fighting most others, including Iran.

Nuclear weapons do not exist for lopsided military conflicts. They are largely designed for destroying large population centers and infrastructure. If attacked by Iran, we would probably use a small nuke to destroy their underground nuclear weapons facilities, but we would gain nothing by bombing a civilian target like Tehran.

It's just so annoying that in EVERY SINGLE thread about nuclear weapons, you idiots chime in about nuking the middle east, killing billions of civilians, cowboy style justice, etc. You only prove your cluelessness with such comments.

Anyways, Iran can build whatever the hell they want. They are not bound by any UN treaties or resolutions. We cannot attack unless attacked. And they have no confirmed nuclear weapons. If they want to build them, they can. If they don't want to, they won't. But every industrialized nation will build nuclear power facilities this century, whether we help them or not. Iran has every right and I hope they exercise it to the fullest.

The US needs to shut the fvck up before it gets embarrassed on the world stage. Oh wait, too late, this country is already a joke all around the world.

To quote Bill Maher: "I'm Swiss".


Well said :thumbsup:

Yup! :thumbsup:

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
So I am right then? If the US firms decided not to bid on the contracts that is their business.

If Iran is so innocent in their intentions why did they clandestinely build enrichment facilities with parts and information supplied by Pakistan (a member not regulated by the IAEA)?

A better analogy would be a man going through great expense and pains to secretly build a gas tank for a car that dosen't exist and that he has no plans to build.


Right? No. ;) US firms have, and WILL, bid on such things, if Washington would just get out of the way.

I didn't say they we innocent. What nation is? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time, which is something all nations do to some extent. The important thing is that the Iranians have satisfied their IAEA obligations, and are subject to their safeguards.

Sorry, your analogy doesn't work for me in context to what we're discussing. :)

Yea, now that the IAEA actually knows about the enrichment facilities so they can inspect them.;)

Your analogy donsen't work for me either.

Actually, the IAEA can go anywhere that want in Iran, and have done just that.

I'm sure if you'd read what I've said carefully you wouldl. Remember, you're the one who said that Washington might be willing to "allow" American firms to sell them a specifc type of reactor. Well, the NPT doesn't restrict them to a specific type of reactor. As long as they don't use the reactors' byproducts to produce nuclear weapons they're golden. My analogy works perfectly as long as we have a common frame of reference in terms of what the US can, or more importantly can't, demand of other nations. In this context my analogy is dead-on.

The Iranians wern't exactly forthcoming about all their facilities until confronted.

Seeing as how light water (PWRs and BWRs) reactors are basically the only type we produce for electrical generation....

If they want a CANDU type hevy water moderated reactor they should talk to Canada or India. The Europeans and Russians also offer various other designs for export.

Nor did\do they have to be. We certainly aren't forthcoming about every aspect of what we do as a nation. This is where our differing perspectives come into it.

Okay, I'll take your word for this. It's too bad that we don't produce whatever a potential buyer wants in this field.

Which is precisely what they've done, leaving the US out of the money.

 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
Sometimes I think that some people in here want to see the US get nuked by a Muslim extremist, paid for and supported by a rogue regime that "deserves" nuclear capabilities since the big bad bully already has them.

Some of you are so far on the fringe that you almost support the authoritarian, oppressive regimes in the Middle East over your own country.

So sad.

But on the bright side, if Muslim countries did get nukes they would probably fight each other before they attempted to target the US.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
What's truly sad is that some people refuse to see the US government for what it is, an arrogant, strutting, venal, willfully ignorant and brutal crybaby, that can't for the life of it understand why it can't do whatever it wants, to anyone, without having to worry about any blowback whatsoever.

It's equally incomprehensible that a portion of the population is willing to aid and abet its own brainwashing, bankrupting and ultimate destruction as a free people. And THIS while simultaneously trying to shout-down any opposition, as if THEY?RE on some ?higher plain? of being. Check that, it isn?t sad. It?s revolting.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Sometimes I think that some people in here want to see the US get nuked by a Muslim extremist, paid for and supported by a rogue regime that "deserves" nuclear capabilities since the big bad bully already has them.

Some of you are so far on the fringe that you almost support the authoritarian, oppressive regimes in the Middle East over your own country.

So sad.

But on the bright side, if Muslim countries did get nukes they would probably fight each other before they attempted to target the US.

If the "big bad bully" didn't bomb and maim countries into "freedom" based on lies, I'd have a little more faith. As it stands, I don't.

Take a history lesson and come back. For nations, nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Your worry is so misplaced, it is embarrassing. Iran has no good reason to attack the US. No country in the world has a good reason to attack the US. No country in the world believes they can win a war against the US. It's suicide to attempt such a thing and everyone knows it. Do you think entire governments commit suicide? No, they don't.

Iran has no nuclear weapons right now, and may have a handful in 10 years if they decide to travel that path. Russia has thousands. If you're an extremist, would you rather wait ten years and get an easily traceable nuke from Iran, or pay cash for a stolen Russian nuke right now? One missing nuke in 10 is noticeable; one missing in a thousand will be harder to notice. And when the nuke does get traced back to Russia, what is the US going to do? Nuke Russia? That's laughable.

It is really appalling so many of you underestimate your enemies. Osama was an engineer. Lots of people throughout these terrorist organizations are professionals, not cab drivers.

I don't want to see a nuke go off ANYWHERE. But in that same regard, I don't want to see war waged on a whim. I don't want the US to continue their policing of the world (because it continually degrades our position in the world).

Nor do I want to see a nation denied their right to pursue clean, renewable energy.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,610
46,272
136
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: K1052
So I am right then? If the US firms decided not to bid on the contracts that is their business.

If Iran is so innocent in their intentions why did they clandestinely build enrichment facilities with parts and information supplied by Pakistan (a member not regulated by the IAEA)?

A better analogy would be a man going through great expense and pains to secretly build a gas tank for a car that dosen't exist and that he has no plans to build.


Right? No. ;) US firms have, and WILL, bid on such things, if Washington would just get out of the way.

I didn't say they we innocent. What nation is? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time, which is something all nations do to some extent. The important thing is that the Iranians have satisfied their IAEA obligations, and are subject to their safeguards.

Sorry, your analogy doesn't work for me in context to what we're discussing. :)

Yea, now that the IAEA actually knows about the enrichment facilities so they can inspect them.;)

Your analogy donsen't work for me either.

Actually, the IAEA can go anywhere that want in Iran, and have done just that.

I'm sure if you'd read what I've said carefully you wouldl. Remember, you're the one who said that Washington might be willing to "allow" American firms to sell them a specifc type of reactor. Well, the NPT doesn't restrict them to a specific type of reactor. As long as they don't use the reactors' byproducts to produce nuclear weapons they're golden. My analogy works perfectly as long as we have a common frame of reference in terms of what the US can, or more importantly can't, demand of other nations. In this context my analogy is dead-on.

The Iranians wern't exactly forthcoming about all their facilities until confronted.

Seeing as how light water (PWRs and BWRs) reactors are basically the only type we produce for electrical generation....

If they want a CANDU type hevy water moderated reactor they should talk to Canada or India. The Europeans and Russians also offer various other designs for export.

Nor did\do they have to be. We certainly aren't forthcoming about every aspect of what we do as a nation. This is where our differing perspectives come into it.

Okay, I'll take your word for this. It's too bad that we don't produce whatever a potential buyer wants in this field.

Which is precisely what they've done, leaving the US out of the money.

Actually we do export our nuclear reactors to other nations. Japan is already operating the new ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor)and have more slated for construciton. Hitachi licensed the design from GE.

The South Koreans are also planning several new plants based on our designs.

Most of the other nuclear nations have domestic designs that they prefer to use as it is good for their businesses.
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
What's truly sad is that some people refuse to see the US government for what it is, an arrogant, strutting, venal, willfully ignorant and brutal crybaby, that can't for the life of it understand why it can't do whatever it wants, to anyone, without having to worry about any blowback whatsoever.

It's equally incomprehensible that a portion of the population is willing to aid and abet its own brainwashing, bankrupting and ultimate destruction as a free people. And THIS while simultaneously trying to shout-down any opposition, as if THEY?RE on some ?higher plain? of being. Check that, it isn?t sad. It?s revolting.

Firstly, I'm not a brainwashed fool like you would like to believe. Not everything in this world is as black and white as you would like it to be. US foreign policy has often conflicted with our shared ideals, but the decision making process is way beyond our line of thinking or reasoning. Policy makers are thinking 10 years down the line and are making decisions on issues that are a lot more complex than what they may seem. What "revolts" me are people that place such a large burden of judgement on the US, people that think the US is,
arrogant, strutting, venal, willfully ignorant and brutal crybaby
while making excuses for authoritarian regimes which would have them locked up and tortured if they directed the same level of criticism towards them.

What revolts me are people that think they have the entire world figured out and anyone that disagrees with them is brainwashed and out of the loop, when in fact their method of viewing things is myopic and simplistic.
 

mOeeOm

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2004
2,588
0
0
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Sometimes I think that some people in here want to see the US get nuked by a Muslim extremist, paid for and supported by a rogue regime that "deserves" nuclear capabilities since the big bad bully already has them.

Some of you are so far on the fringe that you almost support the authoritarian, oppressive regimes in the Middle East over your own country.

So sad.

But on the bright side, if Muslim countries did get nukes they would probably fight each other before they attempted to target the US.

Did Muslims say they will nuke America as soon as they get nuclear arms? Or are you just making another generalization about Muslims?
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Actually we do export our nuclear reactors to other nations. Japan is already operating the new ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor)and have more slated for construciton. Hitachi licensed the design from GE.

The South Koreans are also planning several new plants based on our designs.

Most of the other nuclear nations have domestic designs that they prefer to use as it is good for their businesses.

I didn't say or imply that we didn't export reactor technology to other countries, though this information is interesting.