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

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 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.

they arent 1000mw in NK, they are 2 100mw...maybe a mistype...but they are still under construction. NK is in despirate need of electricity. This is the only way they can get power. I am against nukes, but keeping millions in poverty and pain due to a questionable regime is unfair in my opinion.

If these facilities were purely for weapons production i'd condem them, but they have a far greater, humane use.

Again, how do you chose which countries can or cannot have nukes?

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 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.

they arent 1000mw in NK, they are 2 100mw...maybe a mistype...but they are still under construction. NK is in despirate need of electricity. This is the only way they can get power. I am against nukes, but keeping millions in poverty and pain due to a questionable regime is unfair in my opinion.

If these facilities were purely for weapons production i'd condem them, but they have a far greater, humane use.

Again, how do you chose which countries can or cannot have nukes?

Actually they are working on a 50mw and a 200mw.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
If we were not hte leaders int his tech. The US would have sold, as they supported this as well, as you posted yourself.

Horrible excuse.

If we didn't do it, then someone else would have! Even though there is no definite proof of it as it is pure speculation.

Anyways, I don't think Canada should be blamed for this. I suppose they were conned or scammed or something like that, but no big deal really.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Again, how do you chose which countries can or cannot have nukes?

Might makes right chooses, I guess.

Ideally, all countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. However, the current countries that have nuclear weapons probably want to keep that club as exclusive as possible.

 

[Stunt]

CanOWorms, i will not address comments off topic bashing my country's system...please make a new thread if you have issues with our media approach, and monarchy or effective lack of . Keep to the topic at hand please

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt
Again, how do you chose which countries can or cannot have nukes?

Might makes right chooses, I guess.

Ideally, all countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. However, the current countries that have nuclear weapons probably want to keep that club as exclusive as possible.

I agree fully. Condemning a country for having a nuclear weapons program when itself has one is hipocritical.

"If we didn't do it, then someone else would have! Even though there is no definite proof of it as it is pure speculation."

True. But you have to admit that russia or less allied countries would have made it for sure...if russia is doing it for iran, why not for NK or china for NK...

It would have happened. These were purely power based sales. Warhead development is much more involved.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
CanOWorms, i will not address comments off topic bashing my country's system...please make a new thread if you have issues with our media approach, and monarchy or effective lack of . Keep to the topic at hand please

hehe.. I was just joking since you were making up lies again and on another flag-waving rampage

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Stunt
CanOWorms, i will not address comments off topic bashing my country's system...please make a new thread if you have issues with our media approach, and monarchy or effective lack of . Keep to the topic at hand please

hehe.. I was just joking since you were making up lies again and on another flag-waving rampage

Good point concerning the topic at hand......way to have a constructive discussion.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt
Again, how do you chose which countries can or cannot have nukes?

Might makes right chooses, I guess.

Ideally, all countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. However, the current countries that have nuclear weapons probably want to keep that club as exclusive as possible.

I agree fully. Condemning a country for having a nuclear weapons program when itself has one is hipocritical.

"If we didn't do it, then someone else would have! Even though there is no definite proof of it as it is pure speculation."

True. But you have to admit that russia or less allied countries would have made it for sure...if russia is doing it for iran, why not for NK or china for NK...

It would have happened. These were purely power based sales. Warhead development is much more involved.

I'm not sure what would have happened if Canada didn't sell the reactors and neither do I really care. As you've stated, these were mainly intended to be used for power. I'd guess that India could have gone to Russia as they had reasonably close ties.

 

[Stunt]

I'd like to hear some practical solutions to reduce nuclear weapons in this world...it is easy to say invade iran and NK...but india, china, pakistan are not going anywhere...they have them and have a combined gdp of approx. $10trillion, and populations of 2.5billion. These are not easily handled... You can't just invade every nuclear power.

You can't just go attacking countries with nukes. Unless you want to just attack the weak, as they will put up the least fuss...

Where do you draw the line...it's an interesting questoin.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well I think people are against Iran and NK for obtaining nuclear weapons is because people view them as unstable governments. India, China, and Pakistan (ok maybe not Pakistan depending on who you talk to) are arguably more stable than Iran or NK.

I think it's inevitable for these countries to obtain nuclear weapons. Why would they stop anyways? That would be idiotic.

I suppose the US and others better hope that the 'missile shield' can actually work to protect against the 'smaller' nuclear nations or hope that MAD will still be effective against 'unstable' regimes.

 

[Stunt]

The missile defense program has been very unsuccessful if i recall correctly...the russians have also developed dynamic missile capabilities?...i don't know...i have a tendancy to support investment in crime reduction rather than security systems...but both have the same effect. Hopefully relations are strong, or the technology is as good as it is supposed to be. The future could be surprising.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 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.

they arent 1000mw in NK, they are 2 100mw...maybe a mistype...but they are still under construction. NK is in despirate need of electricity. This is the only way they can get power. I am against nukes, but keeping millions in poverty and pain due to a questionable regime is unfair in my opinion.

If these facilities were purely for weapons production i'd condem them, but they have a far greater, humane use.

Again, how do you chose which countries can or cannot have nukes?

Actually they are working on a 50mw and a 200mw.

North Korea was building a second one(200mw) that we wanted them to stop production of; however, the reactors we were/are building are 1000mw light-water reactors.

Link

 

[Stunt]

More countries should use nuclear power...it is by far the cleanest for mass energy...the by products are a problem i agree. I guess inspectors are the only solution.
you can't really stop a country from using new technology (nuclear) and restrict access to old (oil)...

The two 200mw are in framework...others being made. They currently have a 5mw, which doesn't evn come close to their power needs.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
The missile defense program has been very unsuccessful if i recall correctly...the russians have also developed dynamic missile capabilities?...i don't know...i have a tendancy to support investment in crime reduction rather than security systems...but both have the same effect. Hopefully relations are strong, or the technology is as good as it is supposed to be. The future could be surprising.

I seem to recall that some of the tests were successful, but critics are debating the testing methods. I'm pretty sure the latest test was successful. They've already been signing pacts with countries such as Australia and many believe that a missile defense base will most likely be built in in Eastern Europe, most likely Poland. They've already started installing some interceptors in Alaska and getting ready for California I believe... seems sort of early though.

I'd rather have the national missile defense shield. We gain a lot of technological development and our security will be in our own hands instead of someone else's.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
More countries should use nuclear power...it is by far the cleanest for mass energy...the by products are a problem i agree. I guess inspectors are the only solution.
you can't really stop a country from using new technology (nuclear) and restrict access to old (oil)...

The two 200mw are in framework...others being made. They currently have a 5mw, which doesn't evn come close to their power needs.

The only 200mw reactor in the framework was to stop production.

 

[K1052]

It takes years (decades even) to aquire the needed technology, set it up, and produce deliverable nuclear weapons.

Why do people insist that Bush had someting to do with all these nations trying to aquire these weapons.

NK has used this issue as a political tool to get the US and SK to give them what they want and is doing so again. I am sure the US had long suspected that NK had at least the materials for a weapon or the weapon itself long before NK announced it. They violated the agreed framework, end of story.

Iran signed the NPT. They are apparently now in violation of that treaty.

ElBaradei has indirectly questioned such assertions, suggesting that at least in one instance uranium enriched to 36 percent - not yet weapons-grade but higher than needed for energy generation - appeared to have been enriched domestically.

A U-235 content of 4-6% is normally used for civil power generation.

This is a rather clear sign that Iran is attempting to produce weapons grade Uranium.

The UN might actually have to get off it's @ss and do something about it.

 

[AnImuS]

we need to start working on a "nova bomb" that will teach them!

 

[Stunt]

I have no idea what a nova bomb is...but im thinking it won't teach them anythign more than 7000 nukes would...