Thursday, January 26, 2006

Iranian Nuke Update

The Russians have come up with a plan to enrich uranium for the Iranians, Bush supports it;

""People ought to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power, Bush told a White House news conference. But he said he did not believe "non-transparent regimes that threaten the security of the world" should be allowed to gain the technology necessary to make an atomic weapon.""

Sure, why not? If you can't trust Iran, who can you trust? Iran has massive oil reserves, but they deserve nuclear power? As far as non-transparency, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has made his intentions clear on Israel. The article goes on to say;

"""But Bush said Iran had shown by its actions that it wanted a nuclear weapon.
"And it's not in the world's interests that they have a weapon," he said.""

So if Iran decides in the future to enrich uranium on their own, then what? If they put a halt to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspections, then what? I just don't see how getting the Russians to enrich the uranium changes the views of Ahmadinejad? Inspections, sanctions, Hans Blix, UN resolutions, I detect a pattern.

link to article


Blogger American Crusader said...

It's a dangerous plan Kevin, I agree. Sending enriched uranium to Iran is dangerous no matter where the enrichment process was but there is a big difference between weapons grade uranium and what is needed for civilian purposes. I was searching for something unrelated but found this site where it explained that to use uranium that has been enriched for weapons for civilian purposes is a very costly process. In other words, while we were disposing of thousands of nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War, we have a large supply of enriched uranium but it is less costly to mine unrefined uranium and enrich it for civilian purposes than it is to convert weapons grade uranium to civilian grade. I probably did a poor job of trying to explain that but regardless ...your point that Iran has massive oil reserves, so why does it need nuclear energy is well taken.
The truth is Iran doesn't need nuclear energy...and their nuclear program has only one real purpose. And we both agree on what that purpose is.

January 27, 2006  
Blogger American Crusader said...

I would like to blogroll your site with your permission.

January 27, 2006  
Blogger kevin said...

thanks, i will return the favor after some html lessons from my daughter:)

January 27, 2006  
Anonymous bbq wings said...

You are both very wrong. The Russians would create Low-Enriched Uranium which is not usable in nuclear weapons. You need High-enriched Uranium for a weapon. The point of the plan is for the Iranians to agree to dismantle their enrichment facilities, so that we can make sure that they get power plant-grade uranium, not weapons-grade uranium.

And Kevin, you say that you "detect a pattern" with "inspections, sanctions, Hans Blix, UN resolutions." For some reason, you think that this represents a repeat of the UN's impotence and failure. To most people, this pattern is the Bush administration misrepresenting the evidence to justify a war when, in fact, inspections and sanctions successfully prevented Saddam from getting nuclear weapons.

January 29, 2006  
Blogger kevin said...

Regretably, the point is moot. Iran wants to enrich it's own uranium. Covertly, Manhhatan Project style. Besides, any radioactive medium would work for a dirty bomb. Surely you agree that Iran is probably up to no good, and yes, the UN is impotent in stopping nations like North Korea and Pakistan from getiing Nukes. Israel stopped Saddam with Bombs when he was trying this in Bagdad, not the UN. The UN is just another League of Nations in the face of the Axis.

January 29, 2006  
Blogger Iran Watch said...

bbq wings..I believe if you reread American Crusaders post then you would see that is exactly what he said.

"we have a large supply of enriched uranium but it is less costly to mine unrefined uranium and enrich it for civilian purposes than it is to convert weapons grade uranium to civilian grade."

As far as your contention that the pattern most people are seeing is George Bush misrepresenting evidence then why is the EU contending the exact same thing. Before making spurious charges...carefully read first and then check your evidence.

January 30, 2006  
Blogger American Crusader said...

bbq..why would a country with the second largest oil reserves need to develop nuclear energy? Uranium is not a renewable energy source any more than oil is.
If you had read my post you should have noticed I discussed the difference between weapons grade and civilian use of uranium.

January 30, 2006  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home