-------Iran Resumes Nuclear Weapons Program

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who can and can't have nukes?...who makes the list, who enforces it?

Nuclear capabilities: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States, Israel (i think)

Iran is just as worthy as pakistan...why not invade half of asia, rid the third world of nukes, they don't deserve them!

Maybe just pick on the countries with small populations to avoid casualties...i dunno, where do you draw the line...help me think like a republican

Canada provided the resources for India and Pakistan to have nuclear weapons. So, I guess Iran wasn't worthy in Canada's eyes.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: thuper

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fvck Bush. I hope Iran builds nukes just to spite him.

That's actually EXACTLY why North Korea did it. He added them to his axis of evil list, so they decided to show him evil. Of course, he chooses to ignore.

NK already had nukes when bush made his speech.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: thuper

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fvck Bush. I hope Iran builds nukes just to spite him.

That's actually EXACTLY why North Korea did it. He added them to his axis of evil list, so they decided to show him evil. Of course, he chooses to ignore.

You are tool if you think they restarted their program after Bush's comments. Its well known they had a clandestine nuclear program throughout the 1990s even after they were given billions in aid from the US.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who can and can't have nukes?...who makes the list, who enforces it?

Nuclear capabilities: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States, Israel (i think)

Iran is just as worthy as pakistan...why not invade half of asia, rid the third world of nukes, they don't deserve them!

Maybe just pick on the countries with small populations to avoid casualties...i dunno, where do you draw the line...help me think like a republican

Iran signed the NPT, whereas Pakastan, Israel and India have not. The other nuclear powers you mentioned have all(I believe all) signed it and are recognized nuclear powers. Does Iran have the right to make them? No, not as long as they signed the NPT saying they wouldn't.

 

[Stunt]

Nuke inventory

Interestingly enough Bush plans to reduce, which i applaud. The article is old and would be interesting to see what has happened since, as the US is at war.

"The United States has about 7,000 nuclear weapons ready to use."

Meanwhile, north korea is able to produce a maximum of 1 nuke per year (they only have a 5 megawatt plant). The reactor sat for a long time with no plutonium production. They will barely have enough for 1 by the end of this year.

So, 1 (maybe, pending insane research and development) vs. 7000...kinda a no brainer. Why not just use conventional weapons?...I do not think nukes are needed...especially to the extent shown here.

Please tell me a situation which would require 7000 nukes?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Nuke inventory

Interestingly enough Bush plans to reduce, which i applaud. The article is old and would be interesting to see what has happened since, as the US is at war.

"The United States has about 7,000 nuclear weapons ready to use."

Meanwhile, north korea is able to produce a maximum of 1 nuke per year (they only have a 5 megawatt plant). The reactor sat for a long time with no plutonium production. They will barely have enough for 1 by the end of this year.

So, 1 (maybe, pending insane research and development) vs. 7000...kinda a no brainer. Why not just use conventional weapons?...I do not think nukes are needed...especially to the extent shown here.

Please tell me a situation which would require 7000 nukes?

There was a situation, I believe it was called the Cold War. It was such a long time ago that it's faded away into the history books.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Canada provided the resources for India and Pakistan to have nuclear weapons. So, I guess Iran wasn't worthy in Canada's eyes.

What are you taking about?...are you suggesting that we helped develop nuclear technologies?
please link, and post where the US did not approve of these actions.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Strk

Iran signed the NPT, whereas Pakastan, Israel and India have not. The other nuclear powers you mentioned have all(I believe all) signed it and are recognized nuclear powers. Does Iran have the right to make them? No, not as long as they signed the NPT saying they wouldn't.

So signing on to a treaty and breaking it is better than never signing a treaty and doing the exact same thing?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Strk

Iran signed the NPT, whereas Pakastan, Israel and India have not. The other nuclear powers you mentioned have all(I believe all) signed it and are recognized nuclear powers. Does Iran have the right to make them? No, not as long as they signed the NPT saying they wouldn't.

So signing on to a treaty and breaking it is better than never signing a treaty and doing the exact same thing?

No, signing on to a treaty and breaking it is better than not signing a treaty and doing the same thing.

However, you can't blame these countries for wanting to develop nuclear weapons. While most of the 'nuclear club' is going to want the club to stay exclusive, why wouldn't you want to join the big boys?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CanOWormsCanada provided the resources for India and Pakistan to have nuclear weapons. So, I guess Iran wasn't worthy in Canada's eyes.

What are you taking about?...are you suggesting that we helped develop nuclear technologies?
please link, and post where the US did not approve of these actions.

It's pretty commonly known. I'm surprised that you didn't know that. When India and Pakistan detonated their nuke tests in the 90s, Canada was heavily criticized in the press as well as in the 70s when India had its test.

The nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan has had help from a number of countries, including Canada.

In the late 1950s, Canada provided India with a research reactor called CIRUS with the understanding that the heavy water used to control nuclear fission would only be used for peaceful initiatives, such as energy.

Canada continued to supply both India and Pakistan with nuclear reactors over the next two decades. As well, many of India's top nuclear scientists trained in Canada in the 1950s and 1960s.

By the early 1970s, Canada became concerned that India was trying to harness nuclear power into a weapon. Pierre Trudeau, who was prime minister at the time, warned India against such actions.

However, that did little to stop India from conducting its first test of a nuclear device in 1974. India maintained its agreement with Canada had not been broken because it was a "peaceful nuclear explosion."

Canada immediately suspended all nuclear cooperation with India. By that time India had the knowledge and equipment to build more reactors without Canada's help.

It was not until May 1976 that Canada formally ended its nuclear relationship with India, after discussions to upgrade proliferation safeguards failed.

Similar discussions also took place with Pakistan following India's 1974 nuclear test, and they also failed. By December 1976, Canada also ended cooperation with Pakistan.

from link

Other countries involved in varying degrees are the US, France, Soviet Union, and probably others.

Why does it matter if the US approved or didn't approve? Canada is its own nation and it is responsible for its own actions whether or not the US approved of them.

I like the "peaceful nuclear explosion" part... lol

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Nuke inventory

Interestingly enough Bush plans to reduce, which i applaud. The article is old and would be interesting to see what has happened since, as the US is at war.

"The United States has about 7,000 nuclear weapons ready to use."

Meanwhile, north korea is able to produce a maximum of 1 nuke per year (they only have a 5 megawatt plant). The reactor sat for a long time with no plutonium production. They will barely have enough for 1 by the end of this year.

So, 1 (maybe, pending insane research and development) vs. 7000...kinda a no brainer. Why not just use conventional weapons?...I do not think nukes are needed...especially to the extent shown here.

Please tell me a situation which would require 7000 nukes?

NK has anywhere from 5-12 nuclear weapons. They also have more, much largre reactors coming on line over the next few years, if something doesnt change. This allow them to produce over 50 nuclear weapons per year.

 

[Stunt]

There was a situation, I believe it was called the Cold War. It was such a long time ago that it's faded away into the history books.

you are in support of an arms race then?...there are reasons why countries feel the need to have nukes. If the US had less, all the makor countriues would drop theirs as there would be no point. I do agree with rabid that NK and iran wouldn't, but a few nukes is nothing in comparison to the conventional weapons arsenal the US has.

It is a hard arguement to make: the need for nukes....

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt

There was a situation, I believe it was called the Cold War. It was such a long time ago that it's faded away into the history books.

you are in support of an arms race then?...there are reasons why countries feel the need to have nukes. If the US had less, all the makor countriues would drop theirs as there would be no point. I do agree with rabid that NK and iran wouldn't, but a few nukes is nothing in comparison to the conventional weapons arsenal the US has.

It is a hard arguement to make: the need for nukes....

How did you come to the conclusion that I'm in support of an arms race? You asked if there were any situations that called for 7000 nuclear weapons and that seems like such a situation.

I think they would want nukes if the US had 1 or 50 or 5000 nukes. It brings about a sense of national pride, provides technological advances, national security, deterrent, etc. You have to be naive if you think that if the US and everyone else only had 50 nuclear weapons then Iran and NK would not be researching nuclear weapons.

 

[Stunt]

"Other countries involved in varying degrees are the US, France, Soviet Union, and probably others.

Why does it matter if the US approved or didn't approve? Canada is its own nation and it is responsible for its own actions whether or not the US approved of them."

When you imply by singling out my country for helping to develop nukes, it is very important who else supported this. You could have said "WE", but that wouldnt be your style...you always have to personally attack my country...
So...pakistan and india have the nukes becuase of canada and the US...point?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"Other countries involved in varying degrees are the US, France, Soviet Union, and probably others.

Why does it matter if the US approved or didn't approve? Canada is its own nation and it is responsible for its own actions whether or not the US approved of them."

When you imply by singling out my country for helping to develop nukes, it is very important who else supported this. You could have said "WE", but that wouldnt be your style...you always have to personally attack my country...
So...pakistan and india have the nukes becuase of canada and the US...point?

Well, I believe Canada provided the reactors.

And I did point out US, France, Soviet Union, and others (China, etc.)

 

[Stunt]

"I think they would want nukes if the US had 1 or 50 or 5000 nukes. It brings about a sense of national pride, provides technological advances, national security, deterrent, etc. You have to be naive if you think that if the US and everyone else only had 50 nuclear weapons then Iran and NK would not be researching nuclear weapons."

exactly what i said...please read my posts before you try to argue my points...yay reading comprehension!...

you even quoted it yourself...Me:"I do agree with rabid that NK and iran wouldn't [stop developing], but a few nukes is nothing in comparison to the conventional weapons arsenal the US has."

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"I think they would want nukes if the US had 1 or 50 or 5000 nukes. It brings about a sense of national pride, provides technological advances, national security, deterrent, etc. You have to be naive if you think that if the US and everyone else only had 50 nuclear weapons then Iran and NK would not be researching nuclear weapons."

exactly what i said...please read my posts before you try to argue my points...yay reading comprehension!...

you even quoted it yourself...Me:"I do agree with rabid that NK and iran wouldn't [stop developing], but a few nukes is nothing in comparison to the conventional weapons arsenal the US has."

Then why did you bring up the US nuclear arsenal and even lied about it not being reduced? "Monkey see, monkey do"? Are you backing off from that now?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Nuke inventory

Interestingly enough Bush plans to reduce, which i applaud. The article is old and would be interesting to see what has happened since, as the US is at war.

"The United States has about 7,000 nuclear weapons ready to use."

Meanwhile, north korea is able to produce a maximum of 1 nuke per year (they only have a 5 megawatt plant). The reactor sat for a long time with no plutonium production. They will barely have enough for 1 by the end of this year.

So, 1 (maybe, pending insane research and development) vs. 7000...kinda a no brainer. Why not just use conventional weapons?...I do not think nukes are needed...especially to the extent shown here.

Please tell me a situation which would require 7000 nukes?

It has been believed that North Korea has had at least one warhead for a while. The estimate was increased recently to 7 or 8, which you may say is small, but your talking about a nuke that is in the range most of the most populated countries in the world. Even without a ranged weapon, Seoul is extremely close with several million living there.

The reduction has been going on for a long time, including when the USSR was still alive.(Although it wasn't really a reduction, it was more of a limit, which was still an insane number)

However, what Bush did was a joke. It goes into effect the same day it expires and has no real requirements leading up to that date other than saying reductions will occur.(It is either START II or SALT II, I forget which and the book I have with it isn't with me) The US is reducing its arsenal, but the program involves more than just us.(I believe our goal is 1,300)

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
It is a hard arguement to make: the need for nukes....

Really? I think it's an incredibly easy argument to make. Does any country buy military weapons? Do military research? Weapons? Of course. Defense is key. Why would you not want one of the most destructive weapons out there? That would be one hell of a nice insurance weapon! Think about the leverage you get...

 

[Stunt]

"Well, I believe Canada provided the reactors. "

These were cando reactors. They produce electriccity, we are world leaders in this technology. They have uranium in their country and little oil...so it made sense.

The sanctions set by the US made it impossible for them to get oil, so they couldnt depend on it like the US for electricity (you are at 60% i think). Part of the shutting down of the reactor was a deal to ship oil to them instead. The shipments stopped...that's when they got mad and started the reactors. This afreement was done by clinton and then broken by either clinton or bush.

NK originally started them for power...makes sense to me...but making nukes on the side was smart for them as they are already sanctioned to hell and no oil shipping. It was the only way to keep the US from invading...and it has worked thus far.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"Well, I believe Canada provided the reactors. "

These were cando reactors. They produce electriccity, we are world leaders in this technology. They have uranium in their country and little oil...so it made sense.

The sanctions set by the US made it impossible for them to get oil, so they couldnt depend on it like the US for electricity (you are at 60% i think). Part of the shutting down of the reactor was a deal to ship oil to them instead. The shipments stopped...that's when they got mad and started the reactors. This afreement was done by clinton and then broken by either clinton or bush.

NK originally started them for power...makes sense to me...but making nukes on the side was smart for them as they are already sanctioned to hell and no oil shipping. It was the only way to keep the US from invading...and it has worked thus far.

Um... are you talking about North Korea or India & Pakistan? It sounds like you're talking about NK in your entire post.

 

[Stunt]

"Then why did you bring up the US nuclear arsenal and even lied about it not being reduced? "Monkey see, monkey do"? Are you backing off from that now?"

i remember seeing somewhere the refusal of the US to lower reserves. But found that article and posted it as it was interesting. The article doesnt say that the reserves are planned to go down (remember this is pre- war) The likelyhood of this is slim in war times. Probably analogous to Bush's enivornmental plan...

"The estimate was increased recently to 7 or 8, which you may say is small, but your talking about a nuke that is in the range most of the most populated countries in the world. Even without a ranged weapon, Seoul is extremely close with several million living there."

very ture, that is why they have them, it is a deterrant. But 7000 nukes are needed for NK?...honestly.

"Does any country buy military weapons?"

True but conventional are more accurate and less harmful...radiation and innocent civilian wise.
Biggest isn't always the best. Enough warheads to blow up the entire earth a few times over is definately not warrented. Leverage like what?...the world isn't ceasing nuke development because of the stocks of the US.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"Well, I believe Canada provided the reactors. "

These were cando reactors. They produce electriccity, we are world leaders in this technology. They have uranium in their country and little oil...so it made sense.

The sanctions set by the US made it impossible for them to get oil, so they couldnt depend on it like the US for electricity (you are at 60% i think). Part of the shutting down of the reactor was a deal to ship oil to them instead. The shipments stopped...that's when they got mad and started the reactors. This afreement was done by clinton and then broken by either clinton or bush.

NK originally started them for power...makes sense to me...but making nukes on the side was smart for them as they are already sanctioned to hell and no oil shipping. It was the only way to keep the US from invading...and it has worked thus far.

The Yongbyon reactor North Korea has is a joke and is an extremely weak one. It is a 5mw heavy-water reactor. The agreement Clinton made(which was more than just saying "turn off the reactor") included two light-water reactors, each capable of producing 1000mw of power.

Iran, on the other hand, is currently about to finish building 1 1000mw reactor(actually, Russia is about to finish it). Iran also has plans to build 3 additional reactors, all light-water. However, there is also a plan to build 1 heavy water reactor, producing around 50mw.

 

[Stunt]

"Um... are you talking about North Korea or India & Pakistan? It sounds like you're talking about NK in your entire post. "

I am. But india and pakistan are more developed with more cash...so being the first recipiants of this tech is not hard to understand. Nuclear power plants are one of the best ways to get electricity in some regions. Same applies to all countries.

You can't really blame us for the nukes as the by-products are unusable and having just the material alone is like 1% of the battle when developing. Otherwise all countries could make these things.

The reactors have zero revelance imo. If we were not hte leaders int his tech. The US would have sold, as they supported this as well, as you posted yourself.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"Um... are you talking about North Korea or India & Pakistan? It sounds like you're talking about NK in your entire post. "

I am. But india and pakistan are more developed with more cash...so being the first recipiants of this tech is not hard to understand. Nuclear power plants are one of the best ways to get electricity in some regions. Same applies to all countries.

You can't really blame us for the nukes as the by-products are unusable and having just the material alone is like 1% of the battle when developing. Otherwise all countries could make these things.

The reactors have zero revelance imo. If we were not hte leaders int his tech. The US would have sold, as they supported this as well, as you posted yourself.

The reactors are very important. Canada was heavily criticised when the nuclear tests were done. Obviously many disagree with you and believe that it holds a lot of relevance. Who knows what more Canada provided? The Queen could have it all under top secret classification. You've probably never heard about it because the Canadian government has strict control over media in the country.