Iran's Nuclear Program

HelterSkelter

Just wondering what you all think of Iran's announcement yesterday that it has produced low-grade enriched uranium suitable for power stations. Do you think they should be allowed to do this? Other countries are arguing that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons.

I think every country should be allowed product nuclear energy. I can't decide though if Iran are really a threat or if it is just scaremongering by the US/UK.

meditraitor

Its not that they pose a threat, its the fact they can protect themselves that is so annoying the bully's (USA and Isreal)

growler

I think Iran is a basket-case of a nation, if they do get nukes they will be a threat to Israel certainly. If they have it for long enough they might get around to buying the expertise for ICBMs and I doubt anyone wants that, whats to stop the theocracy deciding that they want to enter paradise in a mushroom cloud of glory and take the rest of us with them ?

Besides, they don't actually need nuclear power for energy purposes, they have vast oil and gas resources.

Also, a point made in the Observer ( I think) was that Iran has an appalling record on safety in general, tens of thousands die on their roads each year, hundreds in plane crashes, if they develop nuclear power there is an excellent chance they'll botch it.

mike65

Do some googling before sounding off eh?

Its not just a 'west/Jewish state' concern all of Irans neighbours are slightly freaked by this programme being pursued.

Second something will be done its just a question of what and when as growler notes the rulers are a bunch of religious head cases, God only knows the impact if thay had such power in missile form in 1979, Isreal would have proberly struck first of course but if it did'nt it would still be glowing.

Mike.

Akrasia

Iran shouldn't be allowed to have Nukes, But neither should America. Of all countries in the world, America should not be allowed have them. America are the only country to use Nuclear weapons in a war, Bush pretty much has announced that he wants to Use his nukes in a strike on Iran. It is America who are preventing global nuclear disarmament and who are developing new nuclear technology that is designed to lower the nuclear threshold. it is america who are threatening all these dangerous countries with 'regime change' which is forcing them to seek out a deterrent to attack. America are the biggest threat to world peace by a ****in long shot. And the current republican government is certifiably psychopathic.

meditraitor

What has googling got to do with it, your one of these guys brainwashed by western media/zionist propoganda that hates the fact that a muslim country within the middle east will have a nuclear program therefore balancing and negating the threat Isreal/America are in said reason,

I heard all this propoganda before, mmmm let me think, pakistan(Muslim) for instance,,,, I dont see them blowing up anyone!

When was the last time Iran invaded a country or showed aggression!

mike65

Isreal don't pose a threat to Iran so I dont follow your logic there. Iran on the other hand has frequently said Isreal should even be allowed to exist.

Mike.

silverharp

I don't think Iran would use Nuclear weapons, but look how the US deals with North Korea V Iraq ...do the math. Now that the US has taken out Iraq, Iran now sees itself as the regional power, what better way to copper fasten this goal

Should they be "let"? I think the question is can they be stopped? I don't think so, all Iran have to do is drop it's exports from 2.5 to 1mbd, double the price of oil, they still get the money and the west economies go down the pan, and that is without being provocotive and attacking shipping in the Gulf.

mike65

Well our collective reliance on black gold does hold us all hostage in the end.

Mike.

toiletduck

Akrasia wrote:

Bush pretty much has announced that he wants to Use his nukes in a strike on Iran.

no he hasn't. israel will never let iran develop a nuclear capability

meditraitor

mike65 wrote:

Isreal don't pose a threat to Iran so I dont follow your logic there. Iran on the other hand has frequently said Isreal should even be allowed to exist.

Mike.

All the current strife in the middle east can be attributed to either Isreal or USA, so you can understand why a proud and progressive(their radicalism was loosing steam until Zionist/american interests decided to pick on them) nation would want a way to protect itself, the only way it seems against these tyrants

Pazaz 21

mike65 wrote:

Isreal don't pose a threat to Iran so I dont follow your logic there. Iran on the other hand has frequently said Isreal should even be allowed to exist.

Mike.

I don't think Iran sees it that way. Israel have been known to strike first, Sinai Campaign, Six Day War, the attak on the nuclear reactor in iraq in early eighties, etc, and i'm sure if they felt under threat that they would have no problem in striking first in this situation, with either Nuclear or Conventional weapons.

I agree that Iran is the agressor in this situation as it has on many occasions called for Isreal to be wiped off the man. That plus we are not sure what the Iranians will do if/when they aquire a Nuclear Weapon, will they use it or will they just use it as a deterent to any further invasion the US may be considering.

It's kinda ironic that the thing the Iranians are doing to deter an invasion may just give America the reason it needs to justify invading Iran.

meditraitor

Pazaz 21 wrote:

It's kinda ironic that the thing the Iranians are doing to deter an invasion may just give America the reason it needs to justify invading Iran.

America never needed proper justification for invading other countries before, why would they now?

mike65

Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that.

Mike.

Pazaz 21

meditraitor wrote:

America never needed proper justification for invading other countries before, why would they now?

Sorry that should say "EXCUSE" not reason, or perhaps "JUSTIFICATION" would work just as well. I know America dosen't need one but it tends to try to find something to hide behind, WMD, Freeing the Iraqi people, etc.

Pazaz 21

mike65 wrote:

Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that.

Mike.

That's never stopped them before, now has it?

They didn't have much support for Iraq, but that went ahead anyway.

They didn't have much support for Vietnam, but that went ahead anyway, as well !!

meditraitor

mike65 wrote:

Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that.

Mike.

Exactly, USA Inc will not invade Iran, its not economically viable at the moment and the amount of casualties that would result from such an action might force a change in the boardroom, and bush(and his puppetmasters) likes the power of the MD seat...

Akrasia

toiletduck wrote:

no he hasn't. israel will never let iran develop a nuclear capability

well, he hasn't announced it, it has been announced for him. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

And just like in Iraq, the 'WMD' thing is just a precept for the war, Bush really wants 'regime change' in Iran.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” ........................

............ Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

HelterSkelter

silverharp wrote:

I don't think Iran would use Nuclear weapons, but look how the US deals with North Korea V Iraq ...do the math. Now that the US has taken out Iraq, Iran now sees itself as the regional power, what better way to copper fasten this goal

Maybe they have just decided to protect themselves in case US/UK decide they are next in the war on terror/we're gonna steal your oil.

HelterSkelter

mike65 wrote:

Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that.

Mike.

There is talk of them pulling out of Iraq by the end of the year. As all their manpower/tanks/guns is already in the region they might very well just move it over the border into Iran.

HelterSkelter

Akrasia wrote:

well, he hasn't announced it, it has been announced for him. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

And just like in Iraq, the 'WMD' thing is just a precept for the war, Bush really wants 'regime change' in Iran.

Ha ha ha, the name of that editorial is "fact"!!

Hobbes

I get IEEE magazine monthly. Latest one there is a huge article on how Brazil of all places started producing weapons grade nuclear material earlier this year. Funny how they don't get slapped for it.

growler

Hobbes wrote:

I get IEEE magazine monthly. Latest one there is a huge article on how Brazil of all places started producing weapons grade nuclear material earlier this year. Funny how they don't get slapped for it.

I suppose no one is too worried about Brazil becoming an Islamic theocracy, Brazil may well need nuclear power given the paucity of its fossil fuel reserves and a growing economy, the Brazilian government isn't renowned for its sabre rattling militarism or hatred of the US / UK and the chances are it (guessing here) its buying its knowledge from the West not Russia.

the_syco

meditraitor wrote:

I heard all this propoganda before, mmmm let me think, pakistan(Muslim) for instance,,,, I dont see them blowing up anyone!

Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, both have fought against each other... and if one launchs a nuke on the other, there'll be a nuke coming back.

jady88

To be brutally honest I find some of the postings in this thread to be so outrageous its actually hard to believe someone would ever think along such lines.

Firstly to meditraitor what kind of insane freak are you spouting out nonsense about some form of zionist/american media plot? This is frightening, what parallel version of reality do you live in? The huge majority of media in this and most european countries are extremely sympathetic to middle eastern problems. You stink of racist undertones dressed up as concern for palestinain problems etc.

Secondly the reality, and I mean reality not zionist/american propaganda is that Iran is the most tyrannic regieme on the face of the planet. It is ruled by an exclusive club of religious elite who use their own twisted vision of Islam to oppress their people. They regularly execute homosexuals, religious deviants, women who seek freedom or anyone else they just don't like. Recently two boys aged 16 and 17 were excecuted for homosexual practises. And a teacher was killed for admitting to her pupils that contraception exsisted. The president regularly calls for the anhilation of the democratic state of Isreal. Women have no rights, not even the right to regect a sexual advance, if she is raped she is to marry her rapist or face excecution.

Now tell me do honestly believe the rulers of such a nation can be trusted with the power to butcher further millions?

HelterSkelter

jady88 wrote:

Firstly to meditraitor what kind of insane freak are you spouting out nonsense about some form of zionist/american media plot? This is frightening, what parallel version of reality do you live in? The huge majority of media in this and most european countries are extremely sympathetic to middle eastern problems.

That's probably why he's talking about an Zionist/American media plot, not a European media plot. Do you think the US Media are sympathetic to middle eastern problems?

Akrasia

jady88 wrote:

To be brutally honest I find some of the postings in this thread to be so outrageous its actually hard to believe someone would ever think along such lines.

Firstly to meditraitor what kind of insane freak are you spouting out nonsense about some form of zionist/american media plot? This is frightening, what parallel version of reality do you live in? The huge majority of media in this and most european countries are extremely sympathetic to middle eastern problems. You stink of racist undertones dressed up as concern for palestinain problems etc.

Secondly the reality, and I mean reality not zionist/american propaganda is that Iran is the most tyrannic regieme on the face of the planet. It is ruled by an exclusive club of religious elite who use their own twisted vision of Islam to oppress their people. They regularly execute homosexuals, religious deviants, women who seek freedom or anyone else they just don't like. Recently two boys aged 16 and 17 were excecuted for homosexual practises. And a teacher was killed for admitting to her pupils that contraception exsisted. The president regularly calls for the anhilation of the democratic state of Isreal. Women have no rights, not even the right to regect a sexual advance, if she is raped she is to marry her rapist or face excecution.

Now tell me do honestly believe the rulers of such a nation can be trusted with the power to butcher further millions?

do you believe anyone should have the power to butcher those millions?

If you support an american invasion of Iran to prevent them from getting Nuclear weapons than you're a hypocrite. If you support America Bombing Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons then you are a hypocrite.

The only peaceful way to solve this problem, is for America to lead a global Nuclear disarmament. Nobody else can do it, because whenever they have tried, America has refused to take part. If america is not part of a global disarmament, then it will never ever happen.

What america is doing now, is backing Iran into a corner, and if you believe they are doing it for purely altruistic reasons, then you have been living under a rock for the last 6 years.

America have one clear way to act like the good guys. Everything else is just bullying, posturing and is going to end in nothing short of disaster.

Who here thinks they'll even try the peaceful option? show of hands?

Nobody? ok then.

KerranJast

Akrasia wrote:

The only peaceful way to solve this problem, is for America to lead a global Nuclear disarmament. Nobody else can do it, because whenever they have tried, America has refused to take part. If america is not part of a global disarmament, then it will never ever happen.

You are seriously naive if you think that if the US tries to go down that path that Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc would follow.

America have one clear way to act like the good guys. Everything else is just bullying, posturing and is going to end in nothing short of disaster.

Who here thinks they'll even try the peaceful option? show of hands?

They don't have the money or troops to invade Iran so they will try the diplomatic path until there is no other option (Israel will probably intervene militarily anyway before that). There is no support for Iran from the other big nations. Russia and China would probably abstain if there was a UN vote for sanctions or air strikes. Russia has already offered to enrich Uranium for Iran if they really do need Nuclear Power but were refused.

The Iranian govt. are crazy anyway if they think they could ever overtly use nuclear weapons. The US has a second strike policy whereby if they or one of their allies is attacked with Nuclear weapons (or if they detect the launch of said weapons) they will eliminate the aggressor. Until then there would never be enough public support in the US or internationally to use Nuclear Weapons in combat. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extreme circumstances and thankfully there has been no need to repeat those tragedies.

The US aren't worried about Iran developing Nuclear weapons for use in combat. They are extremely worried (and rightly so) about Iran passing dirty bombs or full-blown nukes to terrorist groups which could be smuggled into the US or another allied nation.

Personally i would say north korea is the worst regime in the world.

Akrasia

KerranJast wrote:

You are seriously naive if you think that if the US tries to go down that path that Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc would follow.

Why? Everyone knows that they are already outgunned by America, the only reason russia has Nukes at all, is to maintain it's Mutually Assured Destruction deterrent.

Nuclear weapons have become unusable (by pretty much everyone except america and isreal), the only reason to have them now, is to make sure they're not used against you by someone else. Mutual disarmament would be the perfect solution for everybody.
The nuclear deterrent could be replaced by a Global treaty which states that any nation who uses, or allows to be used, a nuclear weapon against any target, military or civilian, anywhere in the world, will be subject to immediate political, economic and/or military sanctions, collectively, by everybody else in the world.
There would have to be a systematic U.N. inspections system to verify that the treaty is being abided by.

They don't have the money or troops to invade Iran so they will try the diplomatic path until there is no other option (Israel will probably intervene militarily anyway before that). There is no support for Iran from the other big nations. Russia and China would probably abstain if there was a UN vote for sanctions or air strikes. Russia has already offered to enrich Uranium for Iran if they really do need Nuclear Power but were refused.

You are assuming that america will act reasonably, and you are also forgetting that Iran, not only do they want nuclear weapons, they want everyone to believe that they can get them as soon as possible. This is because they know that they need a deterrent to prevent attack. The Iranians are not stupid, and they have a really good reason to be paranoid about being attacked. (america keeps threatening them)

The Iranian govt. are crazy anyway if they think they could ever overtly use nuclear weapons. The US has a second strike policy whereby if they or one of their allies is attacked with Nuclear weapons (or if they detect the launch of said weapons) they will eliminate the aggressor.

Yeah they would be, and they're not crazy, they might be assholes, but they're not crazy. They want the Nukes for protection, and if necessary, for retaliation. The way to remove their need for Nukes, is to stop threatening to bomb them with nukes and invade them.

Until then there would never be enough public support in the US or internationally to use Nuclear Weapons in combat. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extreme circumstances and thankfully there has been no need to repeat those tragedies.

There is already a media build up to prepare the population for the prospect of a nuclear attack. distinctions are being made between Hiroshema and Nagasaki as 'real nuclear weapons' and so called 'bunker busters' as 'completely different'. There is also the usual 'it's either them or us' trick that they always use,
I do not underestimate the ability for the U.S. population to be tricked by such a slight of hand, but even if there wasn't public support, the U.S. goverment doesn;t give a **** about what the public think.

The US aren't worried about Iran developing Nuclear weapons for use in combat. They are extremely worried (and rightly so) about Iran passing dirty bombs or full-blown nukes to terrorist groups which could be smuggled into the US or another allied nation.

look, if Iran wanted to plot terrorist attacks against America, why are they waiting until they get a nuclear weapon? Why aren't they shipping tonnes of semtex to america right now?
Iran know if anything happens, the world will make sure that iran becomes a smouldering crater.

Dave!

growler wrote:

I think Iran is a basket-case of a nation, if they do get nukes they will be a threat to Israel certainly. If they have it for long enough they might get around to buying the expertise for ICBMs and I doubt anyone wants that, whats to stop the theocracy deciding that they want to enter paradise in a mushroom cloud of glory and take the rest of us with them ?

Besides, they don't actually need nuclear power for energy purposes, they have vast oil and gas resources.

Also, a point made in the Observer ( I think) was that Iran has an appalling record on safety in general, tens of thousands die on their roads each year, hundreds in plane crashes, if they develop nuclear power there is an excellent chance they'll botch it.

Yeah this post echoes my sentiments!

Frederico

DaveMcG wrote:

Yeah this post echoes my sentiments!

Why do so many people write about something they know nothing about. Civil rights? Zimbabwe and North Korea are much worse than Iran, you could even count China in there with recent events.

Huge oil and gas reserves? Iran IMPORTS 60% of its oil. So much so, that if the Americans can stop this import Iran will run out of oil within 24 days.

India and Pakistan are "friends" of the West. Simple formula, if you are with the West you can have nuclear, if you aren't then you can't unless you get it yourself. Do you see much sabre rattling with N Korea now?

I can't believe people are actually buying the propaganda here, Iran is suddenly the scariest country on earth, while 2 years ago it was perfectly safe.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Are you saying there are only two choices? Let them have Nukes, or invade Iran?
That's called a False Dylemma.

Is it going to be like that? You're either with us, or you're a raving islamicist terrorist?

Frederico

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What exactly do you mean by "take out" the North Koreans in the early nineties? how?

Do you think if the Iranians allow the Russians to enrich their Uranium that the US will leave them alone?

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You believe in getting your strike in first? Does that mean you find it acceptable for other countries to get their strike in first? Like Iran against the US? Like South Korea against the US?

If not, why not?

LostinBlanch

Akrasia wrote:

Nuclear weapons have become unusable (by pretty much everyone except america and isreal), the only reason to have them now, is to make sure they're not used against you by someone else. Mutual disarmament would be the perfect solution for everybody.
The nuclear deterrent could be replaced by a Global treaty which states that any nation who uses, or allows to be used, a nuclear weapon against any target, military or civilian, anywhere in the world, will be subject to immediate political, economic and/or military sanctions, collectively, by everybody else in the world.
There would have to be a systematic U.N. inspections system to verify that the treaty is being abided by.

Nice to see it, but International Relations at the moment are more like Hobbes Leviathan with all countries in what he termed a "State of Nature" i.e. a world ruled by fear, everybody thinking in the short term, the weak fearing the strong, the strong fearing the slightly less strong, and even the weak (they might just gang together you know). Not a nice thought. Actually come to think of it they have been like that for a while, but becoming a lot more blatant with GW and his neocon buddies.

Apres WW2 it looked like there was a change towards a form of Rousseau's Social Contract Model seen in the setting up of the UN. A more enlightened view of how things should work. Far from perfect but much more preferable to the way things are at the moment.

Still I'd like to see it happen

philologos

for all the world know Iran could be creating uranium just for creating nuclear energy but no we all just say that they are gonna make nuclear bombs. and if they do whats the big deal america have a bucket load of them, and I would trust Iranians more than Americans to be honest. And as Amenijad has said America are the bullies of the world basically.

anonymous_joe

I really really really don't want to see the Iranians with nukes... But why should America be entitled to WMDs and no-one else?

the_syco

Akrasia wrote:

The only peaceful way to solve this problem, is for America to lead a global Nuclear disarmament.

So you believe that, without nukes, the USA will be able to say to Iran, North Korea, etc, to get rid of their nukes? Jeebus. North Korea would just be able to say "Bush, f*ck off or I'll nuke you, and as you've no nukes, you won't be able to do diddly".

Akrasia wrote:

The nuclear deterrent could be replaced by a Global treaty which states that any nation who uses, or allows to be used, a nuclear weapon against any target, military or civilian, anywhere in the world, will be subject to immediate political, economic and/or military sanctions, collectively, by everybody else in the world.

If Iran nukes someone, and you impose sanctions, what stops Iran from saying "gimme your food, or we'll nuke you"? Oh, and whats to stop them nuking someone else?
Because the USA has nukes, Iran knows that if Iran nukes someone, the USA will most likely nuke Iran.

Akrasia wrote:

There would have to be a systematic U.N. inspections system to verify that the treaty is being abided by.

Like the one's that were kicked out?

=-=

Not all bunker-busters are nukes.

=-=

Small bit of nuclear material + C4 = large devestation.
Large bit of C4 = small devestation.

Dave!

TOO MANY NUKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



It's dead scary... If one country drops a nuke it'll lead to others doing the same, and the world will be fooked

growler

Frederico wrote:

Huge oil and gas reserves? Iran IMPORTS 60% of its oil. So much so, that if the Americans can stop this import Iran will run out of oil within 24 days.



I can't believe people are actually buying the propaganda here, Iran is suddenly the scariest country on earth, while 2 years ago it was perfectly safe.

Iran exports over 2 million barrels per day, why you think they import their own oil I don't know.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html


2 years ago it looked like Iran might manage to get out from under the yolk of the religious elite, it didn't, sadly for your average iranian.

pete

growler wrote:

Iran exports over 2 million barrels per day, why you think they import their own oil I don't know.

crude or refined?

growler

crude.

I think they can refine something like 1 million bpd. iirc

pete

Iran’s oil industry has not even entirely recovered from the damage wrought during the Iran-Iraq war to oil installations, electric power plants, bridges, manufacturing plants, and other elements of its infrastructure. Moreover, to realize its full potential revenues from its oil reserves, Iran needs to carry through its stated plans of diversifying through investing in petrochemical and profitable crude oil derivatives. Again, this requires outside investment.

In fact, Iran is a net importer of refined oil products, including gasoline! According to the latest Iranian estimates, gasoline imports are expected to cost the country US$4.5 billion in the current Iranian year (1384), which ends in late March 2006. In the previous year, the figure was US$3 billion. These imports are expected to continue, and consumption of oil products is set to grow by at least five percent per annum.

Iran's total gasoline refining capacity is 40 million liters a day; its gasoline consumption is estimated to exceed 64.5 million liters a day. Thus, sanctions that bar Iran from importing refined oil products might lead the Iranian economy to a halt. This situation will have the potential to undermine the political standing of President Ahmadinejad.

http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives.html

BigWilly

I have a horrible feeling that GW Bush could be remembered as one of the greatest US Presidents ever thanks to what he does to deal with Iran...

growler

pete wrote:

http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives.html

interesting, anotheroverrview from BBC here


but to a certain extent , with circa $40 bn in oil revenues annually they still cannot sort out investment in domestic refining capacity to meet their own needs, kinda shows what a dysfunctional state they are.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

patzer117

Ok, i'm horrified by this thread. And i want to post some really angry stuff, but i won't.

First off on North Korea - No Can Do.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm

New priorities also focused on countering sudden chemical and biological attacks against Seoul. The South Korean military reportedly estimates that 50 missiles carrying nerve gas could kill up to 38 percent of Seoul's 12 million inhabitants.

That's 4.56 million people dead, by US-ROK estimates. And that's straight off without a war, just first strike retaliation. So yes, there is a deterrent against invading North Korea that existed a long time ago. That document should explain why it hasn't happened.

Now for Iran. President Ahmadinejad has said he wants nuclear power for peaceful means only. Yeah. Who believes him? The UN? The IAEA? Europe? America? Now, do his people believe him? I think nobody does, only foolish raving anti-Americans. Why would he not have accepted the offers from Russia for nuclear power grade uranium? Why is he not allowing inspectors in? Why would he want to increase his nuclear centerfuge capacity to 50,000 when that would provide more electricity than his country can consume? why did he want to make weapons grade uranium? And why take scientists from India who made the bomb there and not nuclear power scientists?

As for those people saying he's just bluffing - what's in it for him? A swift surgical strike on all his bases that's what.

Ok, lets see why he shouldn't have nuclear - oh yeah, cause he says he wants to wipe israel off the map, and believes Europe and America are 'the great satan'. He, you may remember, coordinated the competition for the most offensive holocause cartoon anyone could draw. Of the myth of course. Seriously, this guy is nuts. I'd link you to the economist article but one must pay for it. I ask any of you to stand up and say 'i think Iran should have nuclear weapons'. Not 'America are worse' or 'nobody should have them' but 'iran should have nukes'. Slagging america isn't an arguement either. The whole world is against them - UN, Russia, Australia, China, Europe, US. come up with reasons why they should have them - others will decide what to do once the decision is made whether or not they should have them.

Personally I'm completely in favour of a surgical strike, by America or Israel if necessary, but preferrably by a coalition under the UN. And i want it right now. Refer it to the Security Council, if and when it says no, then bomb, before we reach the stage where bombing is a potential nuclear hazard. Any later than this year and you'll have a chernobly on your hands if you bomb so you effectively have your hands tied.

Basically Iran with nuclear weapons would make the world a much, much less safe place. Bomb them, and get it over with.

joebhoy1916

Dont no about the rest of ye, but if anyone looks it up Iran has the right to do what they are doing, nobody can say there building nuclear cause you just dont no that. If India, Pakistan, Isreal, Britain, America and all the rest of the countrys have nuclear weapons sure what difference will it make if Iran has them. After all when America started to build them they said they were making them so they could defend there countrys. If ya ask me everyone should have them then no countrys would be attacking each other.