# Russia Delivers Nuclear Fuel to Iran



## Cheshire (17 Dec 2007)

Uh, oh.... ???

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/17/russia.iran/index.html


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (24 Dec 2007)

This isn't scary at all. The US and the IAEA approve of it according to the article.

It isn't as if Iran doesn't have uranium of its own. Would you rather they build their own U enrichment facilities ?

Edit to add: Actually they do already have them  :-[ ahh, change to continue to enrich U.


----------



## Cheshire (24 Dec 2007)

How secure is fissile material in Russia? Now they are exporting it to another country, a country whom at one point point was in the process of developing a nuclear weapon. 

Now, I know there are checks and balances in this process, IAEA inspections, etc, but what good did that do in N.Korea?



> This isn't scary at all. The US and the IAEA approve of it according to the article



The US is approving of this?


----------



## Cheshire (24 Dec 2007)

My bad. The US does approve of this. :-X


----------



## BKells (24 Dec 2007)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> Now, I know there are checks and balances in this process, IAEA inspections, etc, but what good did that do in N.Korea?



Well, last year N.Korea came back to the bargaining table and tensions appear to be lowering; North and South Korea are now operating a train across their border for the first time since 1952.

The NIE released last month that stated with "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program should be the basis for all diplomatic discourse with Iran. We cannot base our opinion of the country based on the rantings of two ideologue Presidents, Messrs Ahmadinejad and Bush. The views and opinions of the two are growing increasingly divorced from the views of their own populations. It won't be long before new administrations are elected in both countries, and I hope that it will herald a new era of competent diplomacy.


----------



## Cheshire (24 Dec 2007)

Junius,

I agree. But the thought that they will be in possession of weapons grade uranium, with their past track record of deception, has to be a little unnerving. If not to us, at least for the Israeli state. No matter what safeguards are in place.

Osirak comes to mind. 

And as for N.Korea, did they not attempt to detonate a nuclear device about 14 months ago? Now we have the current agreements in place for dismantling the program in trade of fuel oil and food aid.


----------



## KevinB (24 Dec 2007)

Junius said:
			
		

> . We cannot base our opinion of the country based on the rantings of two ideologue Presidents, Messrs Ahmadinejad and Bush. The views and opinions of the two are growing increasingly divorced from the views of their own populations. It won't be long before new administrations are elected in both countries, and I hope that it will herald a new era of competent diplomacy.



 :

Beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent life here.


----------



## geo (25 Dec 2007)

+1 I6


----------



## Mike Baker (25 Dec 2007)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> And as for N.Korea, did they not attempt to detonate a nuclear device about 14 months ago? Now we have the current agreements in place for dismantling the program in trade of fuel oil and food aid.


Little bit of a difference between Iran and North Korea. 


 First off, Iranians have food, and oil for that matter.

 Since they have oil, they have money.

 With money, they can buy the things they need, such as military aid from Russia, China, etc.




			
				Junius said:
			
		

> Well, last year N.Korea came back to the bargaining table and tensions appear to be lowering; North and South Korea are now operating a train across their border for the first time since 1952.


Yes, I will give you that, but then again, there is still quite a large process for North Korea to go through until they are more 'Democratic'. But also, these talks can go bad very quick, and then they go back to being on edge.(They have still yet to settle to Korean War)



			
				Junius said:
			
		

> The NIE released last month that stated with "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program should be the basis for all diplomatic discourse with Iran. We cannot base our opinion of the country based on the rantings of two ideologue Presidents, Messrs Ahmadinejad and Bush. The views and opinions of the two are growing increasingly divorced from the views of their own populations. It won't be long before new administrations are elected in both countries, and I hope that it will herald a new era of competent diplomacy.


 : Oh myy.....


----------



## Flip (25 Dec 2007)

Junius,

They won't need weapons grade Uranium once the reactor has been running a while....

They can potentially make all the Plutonium they want !!!!

All subject to inspection of course.


----------



## BKells (26 Dec 2007)

The NIE I referenced previously stated that if the Iranians decided to restart their weapons program in the future, it would still take them between 5 and 8 years to develop a bomb. That's more than enough time to implement sanctions / launch a strike at their nuclear facilities, as most of you are advocating presently.

Possessing the parts involved in a bomb doesn't mean they can build one.

Isn't anyone a little bit more worried about Pakistan? A nuclear-armed country is in the throes of a violent struggle for power.. that seems to me to be the most urgent threat in terms of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.


----------



## BKells (26 Dec 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent life here.



You're insinuating that my statement was incorrect? You think Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad actually represent the views of their population? Bush is running about a one-third approval rate, the Republican party itself is distancing itself from him and his policies, as it fears it will only hurt its chances in electing a new president next year. The Republicans lost the mid-term elections, leaving the lower house being ruled by the democrats. Since that time it has been a series of vetoes and counter-vetoes, leaving Washington bitterly opposed along partisan lines; it's a matter of the recently-elected lower house versus the wishes of the President to stay the course. The only area where Bush has freedom to operate is in foreign-policy, an area the constitution allots solely to the executive branch. They are free to operate based on their own ideologies rather than the long-term wishes of their country.


----------



## Flip (26 Dec 2007)

> Isn't anyone a little bit more worried about Pakistan? A nuclear-armed country is in the throes of a violent struggle for power.. that seems to me to be the most urgent threat in terms of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.



Yup, Pakistan is something of a threat in that regard.

Doesn't mean Iran Isn't
In fact I don't recall Pakistan or any of it's leaders ever threatening a genocide.

The "report" from the NIE can't be taken too literally and it uses a lot of terms
synonymous with "maybe".

I think we all fear that President Hillary Clinton will do NOTHING and the 
opportunity to keep the carnage low will be lost.


----------



## BKells (27 Dec 2007)

More on Pakistan's turmoil.... Beanzir Bhutto was assassinated today.


----------



## Mike Baker (27 Dec 2007)

Junius said:
			
		

> More on Pakistan's turmoil.... Beanzir Bhutto was assassinated today.


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69230.0.html


----------

