Russia Delivers Nuclear Fuel to Iran
- Thread starter Cheshire
- Start date
AJFitzpatrick
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
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?
The US is approving of this?
Now, I know there are checks and balances in this process, IAEA inspections, etc, but what good did that do in N.Korea?
The US is approving of this?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Cheshire 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.
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Little bit of a difference between Iran and North Korea.Cheshire said:
- 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.
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:
:Junius said:
Oh myy.....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Infidel-6 said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69230.0.htmlJunius said:
Similar threads
