Do you think if you post long posts it will make people forget the other 64 refusals that you wish didn't exist?
Iran has expanded sensitive nuclear work: U.N. agency
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
It is perfectly relevant because Iran has not been doing anything for the last seven years. LOL. He really is too funny. In a pathetic way of course.Do you think if you post long posts it will make people forget the other 64 refusals that you wish didn't exist?
I expect that if you went through the other 64 you'd find similar questions.Do you think if you post long posts it will make people forget the other 64 refusals that you wish didn't exist?
Its a game of politics.
Iran doesn't want to give it all away just yet, Israel is pushing the US to push the IAEA to declare Iran non-compliant enough for them to attack.
Iran probably will go for inspections, they are just negotiating at the same time. I'm sure that they are trying to get the US to commit to ending sanctions before they allow full inspections. It would be a bit ridiculous to allow them without that commitment, but I'm sure Israel is probably pressuring the US not to give up those sanctions, they don't want Iran to comply with the NPT as it'll take out their last hope at a legitimate rationale for attacking.
Iran started this spiral by refusing regular inspections. They have been completely non-compliant for three years. The good news is that the nations of the world have seen through the BS and are going to bring them into compliance...whether they like it or not. The more they fart around the more likely it is they will bring violence on themselves...and deserve it.I expect that if you went through the other 64 you'd find similar questions.
Its a game of politics.
Iran doesn't want to give it all away just yet, Israel is pushing the US to push the IAEA to declare Iran non-compliant enough for them to attack.
Iran probably will go for inspections, they are just negotiating at the same time. I'm sure that they are trying to get the US to commit to ending sanctions before they allow full inspections. It would be a bit ridiculous to allow them without that commitment, but I'm sure Israel is probably pressuring the US not to give up those sanctions, they don't want Iran to comply with the NPT as it'll take out their last hope at a legitimate rationale for attacking.
Iran has refused to co-operate with the IAEA, continues to enrich uranium despite it being illegal for them to do so, and is in every way non-compliant with the UN resolutions. You can put 2+2 together based on what Iran has admitted anyway: They claim to have enriched hundreds of kilograms of uranium to 20%, far higher than the 3% needed for energy production. They say it is to feed a research reactor that only takes 7 kg, which is plainly nonsense. There is only one thing you might want to build that takes that quantity of highly enriched uranium, and that one thing goes boom.
There is nothing to debate here, Groggy is just in his usual propaganda mode, bullshitting away, hoping to deflect from the fact of Iran's non compliance.
There is nothing to debate here, Groggy is just in his usual propaganda mode, bullshitting away, hoping to deflect from the fact of Iran's non compliance.
I've been busy, not ignoring you, but I have some free time so we'll try this again:Not really on the topic that I was discussing.
Canada produces a significant amount of medical isotopes without enriching Uranium. Canada produces significant amounts of nuclear power without enriching uranium.
Iran is meanwhile choosing to ignore all other options, enriching uranium far more than is required for peaceful purposes, and researching nuclear weapons systems. How many logical conclusions could be drawn?
You are correct, Canada does produce significant amounts of nuclear power without enriching uranium...........ooops sorry, without enriching uranium!!!
The Candu reactor works on natural uranium. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Iran doesn't use Candu-type reactors. They need LEU for the reactors they do use. So they have a few options: 1)abandon their nuclear-energy program, 2) enrich their own uranium, 3) be dependent on 3rd parties for their energy requirements, 4) switch to Candu technology......theres probably several other options (feel free to add your own) but of the 4 main ones, which makes the most sense for them to do??
As for producing significant amounts of isotopes without enriching uranium, I think it was adequately covered in post #16.
As for "enriching uranium far more than is required for peaceful purposes", we also already covered that as there is a legitimate & peaceful purpose for 19.75% uranium....the Tehran Research Reactor (you may remember that from post #8; if not, please refer to post #8). Now, you seem like an intelligent and reasonable guy, unlike some of the yahoos who post in this forum, so I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between consumption and capacity (but in case I do, heres an analogy - my main vehicle back home has a fuel consumption rate of about 10L/100Km, and the fuel tank has a 100L capacity...........see that means I could run my vehicle on as little as 1L of gas if I don't mind finding a gas station every 10k. But it makes much more sense to fill my tank. If my vehicle was fueled by 19.75% LEU, it could run on any figure between 5.5 - 18.4kg, but rather than shutting it down every year for a few days to refuel, I can just load it up with 115kg and run for 15-ish or so years.......incidentally, that's another advantage of the Candu-type reactors - refueling without shutdown). Iran is still sitting on about 7kg of 93% HEU - that's plenty to be able to supply to terrorists for a gun-type nuke, btw. But since their reactor was reconfigured for 19.75%, they're not using the 93% stuff.
So you see, there is a logical alternative explanation to 19.75% enrichment assuming you put aside your emotions and look at it logically.
Now, who's going to be the first to start throwing "apologist" or "appeaser" or any such nonsense??
Well. I need to get back to work now, but I'm sure we'll be picking up on this again.
TTFN!!
Check the wiki page, its way more complicated then that.Iran started this spiral by refusing regular inspections. They have been completely non-compliant for three years. The good news is that the nations of the world have seen through the BS and are going to bring them into compliance...whether they like it or not. The more they fart around the more likely it is they will bring violence on themselves...and deserve it.
And no, the nations of the world won't bring them into compliance, respectful and fair negotiations will.
I mean, take a look at this entry from 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_IranThe IAEA remains unable to draw a conclusion on whether Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. It normally draws conclusions about the absence of undeclared nuclear activities only in countries that have an Additional Protocol in force. Iran ceased its voluntary and non-legally binding implementation of the Additional Protocol and all other voluntary cooperation with the IAEA beyond that required under its safeguards agreement after the IAEA Board of Governors decided to report its safeguards non-compliance to the UN Security Council in February 2006.[91] The UN Security Council then passed Resolution 1737, invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, obligating Iran to implement the Additional Protocol. Iran has maintained that the Security Council's engagement in "the issue of the peaceful nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran" are unlawful and malicious.[119] In its Safeguards Statement for 2007, the IAEA found no indication of undeclared nuclear material or activities in 47 of 82 states that had both NPT safeguards agreements and Additional Protocols in force, while it was unable to draw similar conclusions in 25 other states.[120] In August 2007, Iran and the IAEA entered into an agreement on the modalities for resolving remaining outstanding issues,[121] and made progress in outstanding issues except for the question of "alleged studies" of weaponization by Iran.[122] Iran says it did not address the alleged studies in the IAEA work plan because they were not included in the plan.[123] The IAEA has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies and says it regrets it is unable to provide Iran with copies of the documentation concerning the alleged studies, but says the documentation is comprehensive and detailed so that it needs to be taken seriously. Iran says the allegations are based on "forged" documents and "fabricated" data, and that it has not received copies of the documentation to enable it to prove that they were forged and fabricated.[124][125]
I know, you don't like wordy posts or reading things that you disagree with, but give it a try.
You can see that both sides have sound arguments that haven't been worked out. Iran backs out of the voluntary additional protocols, the UN declares them non-voluntary, Iran cries foul, the IAEA says it has incriminating evidence (still just the laptop of death) but won't let Iran see it, Iran complains they can't prove themselves innocent if they can't see the evidence. It goes on and on, but its not a finished process, Iran is still in discussion and the IAEA has yet to find anything that says they are making a bomb.
Oh, by the way.
I fully expect some bomb saudi arabia posts in the next few days.
NYTimes, folks. Another radical source.
I fully expect some bomb saudi arabia posts in the next few days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=2For more than a decade, questions have lingered about the possible role of the Saudi government in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, even as the royal kingdom has made itself a crucial counterterrorism partner in the eyes of American diplomats.
Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis’ activities say they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.
NYTimes, folks. Another radical source.
Keep babbling.Check the wiki page, its way more complicated then that.
And no, the nations of the world won't bring them into compliance, respectful and fair negotiations will.
I mean, take a look at this entry from 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
I know, you don't like wordy posts or reading things that you disagree with, but give it a try.
You can see that both sides have sound arguments that haven't been worked out. Iran backs out of the voluntary additional protocols, the UN declares them non-voluntary, Iran cries foul, the IAEA says it has incriminating evidence (still just the laptop of death) but won't let Iran see it, Iran complains they can't prove themselves innocent if they can't see the evidence. It goes on and on, but its not a finished process, Iran is still in discussion and the IAEA has yet to find anything that says they are making a bomb.
IT is kind of hard to find evidence of bomb making when you have not been allowed to inspect any sites for over three years.
It is a good thing that nobody with your biased mindset is not in power in a civilized country.
I have no problem with fully investigating Saudi's role in 9/11 and smacking the hell out of them if they were involved.Oh, by the way.
I fully expect some bomb saudi arabia posts in the next few days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=2
NYTimes, folks. Another radical source.
Now let me see...groggy loves Iran and hates the US and Saudi...what conclusions could that lead us to. Perhaps he is the Aytollah's love child...
Hey, I linked to a front page NYT report saying the US didn't believe Iran was building a bomb.Keep babbling.
IT is kind of hard to find evidence of bomb making when you have not been allowed to inspect any sites for over three years.
It is a good thing that nobody with your biased mindset is not in power in a civilized country.
That's biased?
Speaking of biased, why not listen to the people of Israel?
(well, about half the people of Israel)
http://www.juancole.com/images/2012/03/israeliranpoll.jpg
I agree. If Israel strikes it should have full US support.Hey, I linked to a front page NYT report saying the US didn't believe Iran was building a bomb.
That's biased?
Speaking of biased, why not listen to the people of Israel?
(well, about half the people of Israel)
http://www.juancole.com/images/2012/03/israeliranpoll.jpg
Keep spinning. The US has said Iran is working on the precursors. It doesn't have to "decide" to build a bomb until it has all the pieces in place. It is working on getting those pieces together.Hey, I linked to a front page NYT report saying the US didn't believe Iran was building a bomb.
According to you we should do nothing even if Iran is one screwdriver turn away from having a bomb, so long as it hasn't decided to turn the screwdriver.
In the real world if we want to stop Iran from having the weapon we have to stop it BEFORE it gets to the point where it can decide to build one.
Read the poll again, that's not on there.I agree. If Israel strikes it should have full US support.
