ClanKiller.com
https://forums.plasmasky.com/

Iran & Nuclear Power
https://forums.plasmasky.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1429		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  derf [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:17 am ]
Post subject:  Iran & Nuclear Power
There is talk of developed countries strongly opposing any ambition Iran may have in constructing a nuclear arsenal. Iran is currently undertaking a nuclear energy plan. Im under the impression that if you have a country with nuclear energy, it is dead easy to sell off some depleted uranium on the cheap. Which is what i think Iran may be capable of doing so with the *insert name here* terrorist group. May i remind you that depleted uranium is nasty nasty stuff.

Iran must not be allowed to have unsupervised nuclear energy.
Author:  J [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:54 am ]
Post subject: 
The step from having nuclear materials to building a nuke is still a very big one though.

But i always think it must be a very strange thing to explain to your countrymen:
No we can't have nuclear power, because they fear we might make nuclear weapons with it.
What? Yes they have nuclear weapons themselves. But we can't have that technology.
Why not? Because we're the bad guys.
Says who? The ones with the nukes say so.

Meh you get my point. I'm not saying Iran should be allowed to have nukes, but it must be weird if you're on the other side.

Oh btw didn't France agree with some other nation to cooperate with them against the non-proliferation agreement or so? Heard something vague about that.
Author:  derf [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Building a 'nuke' may be complex, yes. But building a radioactive bomb is piss easy.

Ingredients:

1. 5 ton truck.
2. Fill 3-quarters with C4.
3. Top up with depleted uranium.

I think the opinion of the Iranian people on this matter should be out of considertion because although the Iranian people themselves may be saints, we know that all around them are terrorists. By the way, im sure they can find alternative sources of energy.
Author:  Satis [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:44 am ]
Post subject: 
just to inject a few facts into this conversation.

1. You can't make nuclear-bomb grade plutonium from a regular nuclear reactor. You need a special type of reactor (a breeder reactor) to even start getting nuclear-grade plutonium.

2. After that you have to purify it. You need some very specific equipment to do this.

The problem isn't Iran building nuclear reactors. It's Iran building huge field of uranium enrichment plants (step 2) and reactors that act like breeders. It's very obvious they're pursuing nuclear weapons, and not some sort of civilian usage.

Ditto with north korea. We actually assisted them with technology for nuclear reactors (civilian variety).

Oh well...let's just hope my country's ABM capabilities mature before these guys develop nules and a means of shooting them across the world.
Author:  Rinox [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 1:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
wasn't there some sort of change in the US nuclear credo a while ago? Or pending? Saying that the US could use nukes as a pre-emptive striking means. :o

Anyhoo, like J said, it's really a delicate matter. From iran's pov you have to imagine: a lot of countries who've got nukes themselves -and loads of them too- preventing them to make one. In the eyes of a country like Iran that is both hypocritical and patronising -after all, who's to say the US or France are to be more trusted with their nukes than Iran with theirs?

Needless to say, I prefer -say- France with a nuke than a theocracy like Iran, I'm just saying that from their pov the attempts to stop them make no sense.

It's really all about the double standard used between the West and the rest.

'you can't violate human rights!' ->US has prison camps and death penalty
'you can't have WMD's/Nukes!' ->all big Western countries have them. Heck, Israel has nukes. But does the west mind? Course not.

Ah well...international politics are always a delight. Like with the geneva conventions, everyone does something else than they say they're doing. :) Let's just hope we don't die in the process. And of someone gets nuked by Iran or any muslim country its Israel anyway.
Author:  Satis [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
on a sidenote on that preemptive nuking.

The president has always had that power. Everyone's all freakin' out because it was added to some document, but it's not like anything's changed. The president (and only the president) is the only person that can authorize the release of nuclear weapons. Noone else has ever figured into it. That includes preemptively.

And what president in their right mind would preemptively nuke someone without a damn good reason. I think the document spelled out some reason...the destruction of germ weapons that couldn't safely be destroyed by other means being one. And that's a damned good reason.

Anyway....it's pandora's box. Once a country has nukes, there's no going back. And despite Israel having some issues, they've never used nukes. It was thought they even had nukes during that war in the early 70s where they grabbed the west bank and whatnot....even when facing virtual annihilation, they didn't use nukes.

On the other hand, Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people and on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war. Tell me Iran wouldn't have retaliated with nukes if they had them.

Now, Pakistan and India scare me...I don't think they have the maturity to handle the power and responsibility that comes with them. Though I admit they're trying really hard to move into the present (Pakistan especially), they're not there yet. I could see a nuclear war erupting over there.
Author:  Rinox [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nukes suck.
Author:  Satis [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
bleh, they're an inevitable consequence of progress. Nuclear bombs also brought nuclear power and a deeper understanding of the base physical reality of the universe. It's a tradeoff I'm happy about.

I'm sure people felt similarly when gunpowder for weapons was invented, and maybe even when the first sword or spear was used to kill another human. I certainly know that the inventor of dynamite felt horrible when its power was used to kill. *cough*Nobel*cough*

Anyway, don't worry. Nukes will appear paltry when the next major stride in physics is made. Compared to antimatter weapons or whatever follows that, I'm sure we'll be pining for the good old days of mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons.
Author:  ElevenBravo [ Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Satis wrote:
And what president in their right mind would preemptively nuke someone without a damn good reason.


Ok, I know you guys are going to laugh and ridicule me when I say this but I dont really give a shit.


So, what president in their right mind would preemptively nuke someone without a damn good reason?

answer: none.

So, the president would need a good reason right?


humm, in what case....would the President of the United States use nukes? Maybe after someone already used them on us?

Is it still considered "preemptive" if nukes where used on the US but it wasnt a foreign country that did it?

Lets say a nuke went off in....o ...i dont know. "LOS ANGELES". But the nukes wasnt set up by any of our enemies. But lets say the US government "thought" it was say, Iran. What would be the US's reaction? A nuke counter attack.

In this case the counter attack is really a preemptive measure because Iran never used any nukes on us to begin with...

get the picture?
Author:  Satis [ Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:22 am ]
Post subject: 
US nuclear policy has always been that, if a foreign power users a weapon of mass destruction against the US or its forces, we will retaliate with a nuclear weapon. So yea, if someone nuked LA and we thought it was Iran, by nuclear policy we would nuke Iran.

I know where you're going with that, of course. It sure would be convenient if a nuke happened to pop in LA and gave us the go-ahead to eliminate an enemy via nukes, but I don't think it'll happen. Nukes are too dirty, environmentally and politically. We're still getting fallout (*cough*punintended*cough*) over nuking Japan in WWII, and that was before the true effects of nuclear weapons were known. I don't think we can get away with willy-nilly nuking of enemy cities any more. In fact, even a small tactical nuke used against enemy military forces with no/few collateral casualties would probably cost too much politically.

The president that uses a nuke will never win another election, will probably screw his party for the forseeable future, and will be labelled as a mad killer for possibly the rest of history. Even if Iran dropped a nuke on US military forces in Iraq, I don't think we'd use nukes on em. I think we'd probably blow the crap out of em with cruise missiles and bunker busters, have special forces teams all over their country eliminating anyone above the rank of captain, and probably assassinate the entire governmental structure, but no nukes. At least, that's my belief.
Author:  Myrddin L'argenton [ Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Sorry although you're saying that a president wouldn't do such a thing I am seriously worried that Bush may consider it. After all the war in Iraq was to destroy WMD and the problems in Iraq now are seriously bad. Are you absolutely sure that Bush wouldn't do it considering the things he has done, what he has said etc. The man is a moron after all.
Author:  ElevenBravo [ Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think he will. I mean, who stands to gain from Bush using nukes on Iran?

Bush doesnt have to run for re-election. Also, the republican party(US) is in trouble after hurricane Katrina. The public is now calling for a "bigger government" role in the US.

So, Bush has nothing to lose. And do you really think he cares about his party? He only cares about his Skull & Bones buddies.

Who stands to gain?

Lets say a nuke went off in Los Angeles. I dont think I have to explain how bad that would be. It would be bigger than 9/11 and hurricane Katrina.

Arnold is the governor, he would end up(with the media's help) looking better than Rudy Giuliani, better than Bush, a true leader in the aftermath.

Arnold is married to Maria Shriver, part of the Kennedy family(huge Democrats)

Arnold is a moderate republican.

He would have huge popularity. Bush would launch nukes at Iran making his popularity drop to shit.

All Arnold has to then do is, run on a anti-nuke platform. Claiming to be on a personal mission to rid the world of nukes(like Bushes mission to rid the war on terror).

Bang, Arnold is president. Next thing Arnold would do is secure the borders to make sure another nuke cant be "sneaked" in.

One thing leads to another and then Arnold is...well....see for yourself.

"My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.

"People need somebody to watch over them... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.

"I was born to be a leader. I love the fact that millions of people look up to me."

"I was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years, or even, like Jesus, be for thousands of years remembered."
Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1977 film Pumping Iron
Author:  Rinox [ Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
But wouldn't Arnold die in the nuclear blast as well? :)




Satis wrote:
bleh, they're an inevitable consequence of progress. Nuclear bombs also brought nuclear power and a deeper understanding of the base physical reality of the universe. It's a tradeoff I'm happy about.

I'm sure people felt similarly when gunpowder for weapons was invented, and maybe even when the first sword or spear was used to kill another human. I certainly know that the inventor of dynamite felt horrible when its power was used to kill. *cough*Nobel*cough*

Anyway, don't worry. Nukes will appear paltry when the next major stride in physics is made. Compared to antimatter weapons or whatever follows that, I'm sure we'll be pining for the good old days of mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons.



Heh, I'm not that naïve that I thought nukes are avoidable or anything, I just felt like saying they suck :P ;) I'm still hoping I can get that bunker in North-Eastern Siberia up and running. Living in a hole in the middle of nowhere might not be my idea of paradise, but if it keeps me out of harm's way? Sure. :)

Erh...anyway. Let's hope we don't get to deal with such weaponry or its effects. I just dislike the whole hypocrisy of the debate. Saddam used biological weapons against ppl/opponents, sure, but the US did nuke Japan. And nuking is a whole lot worse than nerve gas or anything. Also, in WWI mustard gas was used by Germany. And closer to home there's the US using depleted uranium in their weaponry, causing mass cancers and birth defects in (for example) Iraq. All Western and now upstanding countries that pretty much were the first to put all those things in practice. Does it make it any less worse if you are the first to use such means? Ignorance can be bliss, but it isn't an excuse either.

So the whole debate is precarious: I don't want another country with nukes either, but really, does the West have any moral high ground? Not in the least. So I don't buy the "only evil fanatics use awful weapons" thing....I wouldn't know how to solve the problem either btw, but there should be better reasons than moral ones.

Bleh...incohorent rant, i'm tired.
Author:  ElevenBravo [ Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rinox wrote:
But wouldn't Arnold die in the nuclear blast as well? :)



Of course not.

#1 Sacramento is the state capital and it is nowhere near LA.
#2 Why would our government blow up its next Dictator..I mean President?
Author:  Satis [ Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
depleted uranium causes cancer? Can you link me to a reputable source on that?

Anyway, blah. I guess I really don't have much more to say. Just make sure to stock that bunker with plenty of women and beer.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/