Home Non Cigar Related

Iran-Where do we go from here?

fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
From Reuters:
TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran began loading fuel into the core of its first nuclear power plant on Tuesday, its atomic energy chief said, taking the last major step to realizing its stated goal of becoming a peaceful user of nuclear energy. Officials said it showed Iran's nuclear plans were on track despite sanctions aimed at forcing it to curb uranium enrichment which many countries fear is aimed at developing atomic weapons. "This day will be remembered ... because it was the day when fuel was lowered into the core of the reactor," Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said. Amid great media fanfare, fuel rods were transported into the reactor building in August, but they were not inserted into its core and the plant's start-up was delayed due to what were described as minor technical problems. At a much lower-key news conference, broadcast live from the plant on Iran's the Gulf coast, Salehi said it would take a further two months to complete the process of lowering 163 fuel assemblies into the core of the reactor and running tests. He said three fuel assemblies had been inserted so far. The Russian-built 1,000-MW plant will feed Iran's first nuclear power into the national grid early next year, he said. "If it were in Europe it would supply electricity to about 800,000 or 900,000 people," Ian ****-Lacy, of the World Nuclear Association (WNA) industry body, said. Officials have denied that the "Stuxnet" computer virus delayed the start-up, although it did infect some computers at Bushehr. Some analysts speculated the worm was designed by Iran's enemies to sabotage the nuclear program. TALKS STILL STALLED "Iran's peaceful nuclear activities are going on as scheduled," Foreign Minister spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters at his weekly news conference. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of Iran's parliamentary committee on foreign policy and national security, called the fuelling of Bushehr a victory against sanctions. "What counts a lot in this process is that America mobilized all its resources across the world to ratchet up the pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran and they believe that imposing sanctions on us will deter us from making progress," he said. Western analysts said Bushehr was a separate issue from the nuclear enrichment which concerns countries that view Iran as a threat. "It should not be interpreted as some kind of act of defiance," said Mark Fitzpatrick at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think-tank in London. "Nobody has asked them to stop on Bushehr. I think it is a big mistake to equate these two issues ... The fact that they have not responded to Catherine Ashton is an important proliferation related issue." EU foreign policy chief Ashton, who represents the "P5+1" powers -- U.N. Security Council permanent members Russia, the United States, China, France and Britain, plus Germany -- has invited Iran for talks in Vienna from November 15 to 17. Iran has welcomed the offer of talks -- which the powers want to yield a deal curbing Iran's enrichment drive and opening it up to U.N. nuclear inspectors in exchange for a package of benefits -- but has not yet formally replied to the invitation. "We are following up the issue," Mehmanparast said. "We should reach consensus on the venue and timing as well as the content of the talks." Similar talks stalled a year ago, leading to a new round of sanctions from the U.N. Security Council in June and tighter measures from Washington and the European Union. Iran insists it needs to enrich uranium -- material which also can be used to make weapons if refined to a high degree -- to fuel future power stations and a medical research reactor. Experts say that firing up the $1-billion Bushehr plant will not take Iran any closer to building a nuclear bomb since Russia will supply the enriched uranium for the reactor and take away spent fuel that could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium. Tehran is showing no sign of backing down in the dispute, pressing ahead with enrichment activity despite the sanctions. Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz is wholly separate from the Bushehr power station.

Will this situation prompt Israel to act? Will this draw the US and the free world further into the conflict? Will the peace loving Iranian Govt use this to further their aspirations of building a nuclear bomb and threaten Israel?

Comments

  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭
    I tried reading this, but kept losing my place, so I gave up, lol
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 5,181 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Got to admit it sounds scary to me. Personally, I think WE should use more nuclear power and continue to advance the technology, but there's no telling where these people will take it. Seems kind of like letting a schizophrenic drive your kids school bus. Let's keep our fingers crossed, eh?
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
    Amos Umwhat:
    Got to admit it sounds scary to me. Personally, I think WE should use more nuclear power and continue to advance the technology, but there's no telling where these people will take it. Seems kind of like letting a schizophrenic drive your kids school bus. Let's keep our fingers crossed, eh?

    I agree completely, very scary to let these nuts acquire nuclear capabilities. I also agree it is the answer to most of our energy needs
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    fla-gypsy:
    Amos Umwhat:
    Got to admit it sounds scary to me. Personally, I think WE should use more nuclear power and continue to advance the technology, but there's no telling where these people will take it. Seems kind of like letting a schizophrenic drive your kids school bus. Let's keep our fingers crossed, eh?

    I agree completely, very scary to let these nuts acquire nuclear capabilities. I also agree it is the answer to most of our energy needs
    problem is, the waste. if it wasn't for that they it's be a decent pwr source, however it isn't cheap and is heavily subsidized by our taxes/govt.
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    Amos Umwhat:
    Got to admit it sounds scary to me. Personally, I think WE should use more nuclear power and continue to advance the technology, but there's no telling where these people will take it. Seems kind of like letting a schizophrenic drive your kids school bus. Let's keep our fingers crossed, eh?

    I agree completely, very scary to let these nuts acquire nuclear capabilities. I also agree it is the answer to most of our energy needs
    problem is, the waste. if it wasn't for that they it's be a decent pwr source, however it isn't cheap and is heavily subsidized by our taxes/govt.

    you would prefer we keep buying oil from those that hate us and vowed to destroy us? There is a bigger issue here also that no one has went to yet. The Israeli's are a serious wildcard in this issue and they could suck the entire world into this issue with one air strike.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 5,181 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The waste has indeed been a problem, but, look at the advances we've made since the sixties. Back then the waste was enormous. By the nineties 90% of the used material was recyclable. If this follows the usual pattern of technological advancement, the more we use it and learn about it, the better this will get. Also, the early materials had long half-lifes, like 200,000 years long. Newer materials have half-lifes of less than a century, and that's with us only half-heartedly trying. We've got to do something to break our addiction to the finite oil resources. Why not try on all fronts? How about multiple tiny reactors like that one in Alaska? I forget where, but some township far from everything has one, and it can power FAR more than they are capable of using. Let's move forward.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
    Amos Umwhat:
    The waste has indeed been a problem, but, look at the advances we've made since the sixties. Back then the waste was enormous. By the nineties 90% of the used material was recyclable. If this follows the usual pattern of technological advancement, the more we use it and learn about it, the better this will get. Also, the early materials had long half-lifes, like 200,000 years long. Newer materials have half-lifes of less than a century, and that's with us only half-heartedly trying. We've got to do something to break our addiction to the finite oil resources. Why not try on all fronts? How about multiple tiny reactors like that one in Alaska? I forget where, but some township far from everything has one, and it can power FAR more than they are capable of using. Let's move forward.

    France gets the vast majority of their electricity from nuclear and it has worked for them. It can work here too.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    fla-gypsy:
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    Amos Umwhat:
    Got to admit it sounds scary to me. Personally, I think WE should use more nuclear power and continue to advance the technology, but there's no telling where these people will take it. Seems kind of like letting a schizophrenic drive your kids school bus. Let's keep our fingers crossed, eh?

    I agree completely, very scary to let these nuts acquire nuclear capabilities. I also agree it is the answer to most of our energy needs
    problem is, the waste. if it wasn't for that they it's be a decent pwr source, however it isn't cheap and is heavily subsidized by our taxes/govt.

    you would prefer we keep buying oil from those that hate us and vowed to destroy us? There is a bigger issue here also that no one has went to yet. The Israeli's are a serious wildcard in this issue and they could suck the entire world into this issue with one air strike.
    I believe this reactor is one involving the Russians and they have supplied the fuel rods and will be responsible for the removal of them as well. From what is being reported even the US government is not concerned about THIS reactor. I doubt the Israeli's would take out this one.
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
    laker1963:
    fla-gypsy:
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    Amos Umwhat:
    Got to admit it sounds scary to me. Personally, I think WE should use more nuclear power and continue to advance the technology, but there's no telling where these people will take it. Seems kind of like letting a schizophrenic drive your kids school bus. Let's keep our fingers crossed, eh?

    I agree completely, very scary to let these nuts acquire nuclear capabilities. I also agree it is the answer to most of our energy needs
    problem is, the waste. if it wasn't for that they it's be a decent pwr source, however it isn't cheap and is heavily subsidized by our taxes/govt.

    you would prefer we keep buying oil from those that hate us and vowed to destroy us? There is a bigger issue here also that no one has went to yet. The Israeli's are a serious wildcard in this issue and they could suck the entire world into this issue with one air strike.
    I believe this reactor is one involving the Russians and they have supplied the fuel rods and will be responsible for the removal of them as well. From what is being reported even the US government is not concerned about THIS reactor. I doubt the Israeli's would take out this one.

    I think you are probably correct but we are talking about the Iranians here and you know work on a weapons grade enrichment operation is being constructed somewhere and the Israeli's can have a hair trigger sometimes.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    fla-gypsy:
    laker1963:
    fla-gypsy:
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    Amos Umwhat:
    Got to admit it sounds scary to me. Personally, I think WE should use more nuclear power and continue to advance the technology, but there's no telling where these people will take it. Seems kind of like letting a schizophrenic drive your kids school bus. Let's keep our fingers crossed, eh?

    I agree completely, very scary to let these nuts acquire nuclear capabilities. I also agree it is the answer to most of our energy needs
    problem is, the waste. if it wasn't for that they it's be a decent pwr source, however it isn't cheap and is heavily subsidized by our taxes/govt.

    you would prefer we keep buying oil from those that hate us and vowed to destroy us? There is a bigger issue here also that no one has went to yet. The Israeli's are a serious wildcard in this issue and they could suck the entire world into this issue with one air strike.
    I believe this reactor is one involving the Russians and they have supplied the fuel rods and will be responsible for the removal of them as well. From what is being reported even the US government is not concerned about THIS reactor. I doubt the Israeli's would take out this one.

    I think you are probably correct but we are talking about the Iranians here and you know work on a weapons grade enrichment operation is being constructed somewhere and the Israeli's can have a hair trigger sometimes.
    Yes a hair trigger is just one of the Israeli's short comings.
  • gmill880gmill880 Posts: 5,947
    Supposedly Saudi Arabia gave Israel permission to fly thru a small corridor of their air-space for an attack on Iran ( Of course the Saudi's denied this and said it was illogical to think they would agree to a violation of their airspace - what else would they say ) with the State Departments full blessing.This was reported in June 2010 by The London Times. Four main targets would be uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavywater reactor at Arak. Secondary target would be the lightwater reactor at Bushehr.
    Egypt , Saudi Arabia and Jordan are as nervous as the Israeli's and the West is over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Nothing will be done about any of this from a military standpoint without US permission. That I believe is the only thing that has allowed it to progress to this point , the Obama administrations reluctance to do anything but sanctions. Would any other administration or US President have done anything different ? I don't know the answer, but I would imagine some very deep soul searching for what could potentially be unleashed in the middle east would be in order before the military option was put into play. Once started or carried out this dangerous game has the potential to change the world as we know it.

    Some of these nations feel they have been backed into a corner. Breaking it down into its simplest form : If I have a disagreement with my neighbor and I know he hates me and I don't trust him, AND he has told some of my other neighbors that he intends to destroy me or my house and I come home one day and he has a .50 Cal machine gun setup on his back porch aimed at my house thats going to be a big problem for him and me.
Sign In or Register to comment.