http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_nuclear

Well, like it or not, Iran is going forward with its first nuclar power plant.

Looks like we have the Russians to thank for lending a helping hand.

So, what do you think the appropriate reaction will be from the Obama administration?

appropriate reaction? what do you mean, congratulating them?

Well, I have no issue if they're actually following this path to generate power.

However, since Nutjob is the pos that he is I worry it'll be a front.

Wiggo, if you feel that's the appropriate response, then so be it.

Fandros, since Jedd hasn't appeared to start spouting off reams of propaganda in favor of Iran's nuclear program, I'll take the lead, and ask you this question: With Russia being the gatekeeper of the fuel, is there any reason to believe there would be a way for Iran to use any of it to manufacture a warhead?

Eh, I'm no expert in the field by any means but I highly doubt Russia would want Iran having nuke warhead material.

Afterthought, wouldn't be suprised if there was an "accident" to be blamed upon the West.

That may be, but do you forsee a way they could fool Russia into allowing them to keep some of the spent fuel?

Perhaps a 'hijacking' of the material by a convient third party, whom will deliver the material to be further enriched into a weapons grade warhead?

Or does that just sound like the plot to a new James Bond movie?

Personally I think Iran would like to continue to play both sides of the coin: Keep the West guessing about its nuclear program, while representing itself as the biggest player to the rest of the Middle East.

Well, if I understand correctly once the rods are spent you have to enrich the left over material to produce another form of Uranium before it becomes weapon grade.

I suppose you could use the raw material to make a dirty bomb but if I remember correctly it's really not workable.

eh, suggesting both of you read the article where it clearly states iran has not stopped enriching uranium (as is their right, etc) and will go forward with their plan for a powerplant in Darkhovin (which i, although the article does not specify, think will be a heavy water reactor).

Here's what I found....

Normally for electrical power production the uranium fuel remains in the reactor for three to four years, which produces a plutonium of 60 percent or less Pu-239, 25 percent or more Pu-240, 10 percent or more Pu-241, and a few percent Pu-242. The Pu-240 has a high spontaneous rate of fission, and the amount of Pu-240 in weapons-grade plutonium generally does not exceed 6 percent, with the remaining 93 percent Pu-239. Higher concentrations of Pu-240 can result in pre-detonation of the weapon, significantly reducing yield and reliability. For the production of weapons-grade plutonium with lower Pu-240 concentrations, the fuel rods in a reactor would have to be changed frequently, about every four months or less.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm

eh, suggesting both of you read the article where it clearly states iran has not stopped enriching uranium (as is their right, etc) and will go forward with their plan for a powerplant in Darkhovin (which i, although the article does not specify, think will be a heavy water reactor).

I've read the article but you misunderstand whats being said.

There is enrichment to aquire the fuel neccessary for power plant operation and then further enrichment to develop weapon grade material ( which they will not get the right to develop ).

Noone gives a damn about the power plant, hell even I support thier right to do so. It's the weapons grade enrichment folks worry about.

Here's what I found....



http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm

For some reason I was associating 237 as the weapons grade material. See told you I wasn't an expert!

I've read the article but you misunderstand whats being said.

There is enrichment to aquire the fuel neccessary for power plant operation and then further enrichment to develop weapon grade material ( which they will not get the right to develop ).

Noone gives a damn about the power plant, hell even I support thier right to do so. It's the weapons grade enrichment folks worry about.

unless i completely misunderstood you, you were talking about a plot so tinfoily it read like a bad days of our lives script, a plot aimed at acquiring spent fuel from a lightwater plant and somehow (by magic?) turning it weapons-grade. my question is: why the hell would they do that when theyre already enriching uranium right now?

Wasn't me speaking of that plot, it was Sixee. I debunked it due to other discussions we had and a few folks here who are learned on the subject explained it as false.

I am happy for them. Welcome to the 2009.

I hope they have a chernobyl.

I hope they have a chernobyl.

i hope you have a chernobyl...

...in your rectum.

i hope you have a chernobyl...

...in your rectum.

In my rectum? hmm. I mean, Iran is a huge turd. I suppose it's possible :D

In my rectum? hmm. I mean, Iran is a huge turd. I suppose it's possible :D

my dear boy, chernobyl is not iran.

Durrr...

No shit.

You clearly missed the point that I was equating iran to in my rectum I.E a turd...

So you hope they have a major nuclear catastrophe with global implications? I hope there is a draft and and you get to go fight a war.

So you hope they have a major nuclear catastrophe with global implications? I hope there is a draft and and you get to go fight a war.

Well if we are lucky, it would make its way to syria, and certain parts of pakistan.

I can't fight a war, I have no legs and only 1 arm.

I can't fight a war, I have no legs and only 1 arm.

You forgot to add your lack of intelligence and basic skills.

You forgot to add your lack of intelligence and basic skills.

Ok, Gomer Pyle.

And lack of wit...

Once again, I still have 2 parents :)

Wow, Buyza....even if you don't recognize Iran's right to have a nuclear power plant if they so choose, wishing it blows up and kills innocents is pretty unsupportable.

As for myself I recognize their right to have a nuclear power plant and only wish it had been us that helped them. That being said, I do not recognize their right to obfuscate their program and continue to pursue a course that leads to the development of a weapon.

As far as Obama..say, congratulations to the the people of Iran on the opening of this plant. Now open up to inspectors and prove to the world your intentions are to develop this technology for peaceful purposes only....you bastards.

...okay maybe not those last two words.:)

Since Iran is forced to import most of their energy, due to a serious lack of refinery capability, I say welcome to the club and congratulations.

I am also quite confident that Russia has some serious strings tied to their assistance, and that the last thing they want is for Iran to be monkeying with nuclear weapons so close to their borders. They do not want a possible nuclear showdown on their doorsteps. I also think they are deep in the diplomatic efforts to keep Pakistan and India talking, rather than shooting.
Just my opinion of course.

Well if we are lucky, it would make its way to syria, and certain parts of pakistan.

I can't fight a war, I have no legs and only 1 arm.

I think the prevailing winds go the other direction, i.e. Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

3 Pages before a Jedd Post!!! woooooo!

3 Pages before a Jedd Post!!! woooooo!

were you busy making your music video? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znf_nqW8IZ8

were you busy making your music video? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znf_nqW8IZ8

You don't know the difference between Armenian and Persian?

Don't you know he's a seasoned world traveler and international businessman?

I don't think ANYONE has a problem with them using it for power. I know I don't. My only issues were them trying to use it for weapons.

You don't know the difference between Armenian and Persian?

In LA there is none. Jedd knows that :D

In LA there is none. Jedd knows that :D

uh??

Are you on crack?

My question is: why the hell would they do that when theyre already enriching uranium right now? Because reactor grade U is about 4-5% fissile, while nuclear bombs made of U need about 90% fissile. Since the IAEA keeps collecting samples of U from the Iranian enrichment facility, Iran can't get away with enriching the fuel to a higher percentage for weapons production (no sample of U collected in Iran by the IAEA is above 5% fissile).

Pakistan is the only countries that make uranium bombs. The rest make plutonium bombs. As for diverting spent fuel rods, that is how bush screwed the pooch and let NK become a nuclear power.
But the North Koreans had another route to nuclear weapons--a stash of radioactive fuel rods, taken a decade earlier from its nuclear power plant in Yongbyon. These rods could be processed into plutonium--and, from that, into A-bombs--not in years but in months. Thanks to an agreement brokered by the Clinton administration, the rods were locked in a storage facility under the monitoring of international weapons-inspectors. Common sense dictated that--whatever it did about the centrifuges--the Bush administration should do everything possible to keep the fuel rods locked up.

Unfortunately, common sense was in short supply. After a few shrill diplomatic exchanges over the uranium, Pyongyang upped the ante. The North Koreans expelled the international inspectors, broke the locks on the fuel rods, loaded them onto a truck, and drove them to a nearby reprocessing facility, to be converted into bomb-grade plutonium. The White House stood by and did nothing. Why did George W. Bush--his foreign policy avowedly devoted to stopping "rogue regimes" from acquiring weapons of mass destruction--allow one of the world's most dangerous regimes to acquire the makings of the deadliest WMDs? Given the current mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq, it's hard to imagine a decision more ill-conceived than invading that country unilaterally without a plan for the "post-war" era. But the Bush administration's inept diplomacy toward North Korea might well have graver consequences. President Bush made the case for war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam Hussein might soon have nuclear weapons--which turned out not to be true. Kim Jong-il may have nuclear weapons now; he certainly has enough plutonium to build some, and the reactors to breed more.

{snip}

Conservatives today portray Bush's unwillingness to negotiate with Kim as a virtue that will make the world safer, and Clinton's '94 framework as something that rewarded evil and therefore undermined our security. But the simple fact is that if Clinton hadn't signed it, North Korea could have built dozens of nuclear bombs by now--to store as a deterrent, rattle as weapons of intimidation, sell to the highest bidder for much-needed hard currency, or all three. And if steps aren't taken to ward North Korea off its current course, Kim Jong-il could build dozens of bombs over the next few years. This is why, ultimately, Bush's no-negotiations policy is not merely puzzling but irresponsible. Kim may be playing the nuclear card as a bargaining chip, but if the United States declines to bargain, he will gladly keep his chips and stack them high. Source (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html)
But that batshit insane bush wanted a war with Iraq, and that's how NK got nuclear weapons.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs”—meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office—“today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!” Source (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid)

I hope they have a chernobyl. The reactor at Bushehr has a containment vessel, the reactor at Chernobyl didn't have one, so there isn't any chance of a Chernobyl. Three Mile Island - maybe. Chernobyl - no. Just make sure to keep colas away from the control panel.