I for one welcome our new Iranian Overlords...

Overheal

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/world/middleeast/22bushehr.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

TEHRAN — Thirty-six years after construction began under the shah, Iran finally opened its first nuclear power plant at a ceremony on Saturday.
Attended by senior officials from Iran and Russia, which helped build the station through years of concern by the United States and other Western nations that Iran was using its civilian program to mask a plan to build a bomb, the ceremony marked the beginning of the transfer of low-enriched uranium fuel rods from a storage site into the plant.
Officials of both countries said Saturday’s events signified the opening, not the startup, of the plant near Bushehr, in southern Iran, as a working nuclear plant.
“This is a special day for both Russian and Iranian specialists,” the chief of Russia’s Rosatom state nuclear power company, Sergei Kiriyenko, said, shaking hands and smiling with his Iranian counterparts, in television reports broadcast in Russia.

So Iran is now a member of the Nuclear Club.

Meanwhile, Iran is furthering it's Nuclear Enrichment in spite of UN sanctions, and Missile Programs. German Authorities are intercepting illegal arms shipments into Iran, and Russia is expected to deliver S-300 Surface-to-Air missiles to the country.

Iran has also made it clear they will counter any attack on Iran.

It's not all bad news. The US Navy plucked 8 Iranian fisherman out of the water after they were discovered having abandoned their burning ship on Wednesday. I doubt it will do a whole lot to warm relations though.

I for one hope they don't do anything.... Zealous. The best we can hope for is it might even possibly stabilize the region. Who can tell.

Iwasfrozen

I don't really see what the problem is here. There is no evidence that Iran will threaten world security with nuclear weapons.

kev9100

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't really see what the problem is here. There is no evidence that Iran will threaten world security with nuclear weapons.

Really? Because Isreal is right next door and lets face it, Iran and Israel aren't the best of friends...

Iwasfrozen

kev9100 wrote: »

Really? Because Isreal is right next door and lets face it, Iran and Israel aren't the best of friends...

Israel already possesses weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons before yet despite hating Iran has never used them. Futher to that the principals of mutual assured destruction will ensure Iran does not deploy nukes against Israel.

Overheal

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Israel already possesses weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons before yet despite hating Iran has never used them. Futher to that the principals of mutual assured destruction will ensure Iran does not deploy nukes against Israel.

That, or, we could one day witness a Microcosm of M.A.D. in the Middle East.

Scarab80

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Israel already possesses weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons before yet despite hating Iran has never used them. Futher to that the principals of mutual assured destruction will ensure Iran does not deploy nukes against Israel.

And the principle of fervent religious belief in war against the infidels combined with a theocratic leadership may ensure the principals of mutually assured destruction do not apply.

deise go deo

Overheal wrote: »

So Iran is now a member of the Nuclear Club.

Meanwhile, Iran is furthering it's Nuclear Enrichment in spite of UN sanctions, and Missile Programs. German Authorities are intercepting illegal arms shipments into Iran, and Russia is expected to deliver S-300 Surface-to-Air missiles to the country.

Iran has also made it clear they will counter any attack on Iran.

Hardly suprising, Any state will retalliate against atack.

It's not all bad news. The US Navy plucked 8 Iranian fisherman out of the water after they were discovered having abandoned their burning ship on Wednesday. I doubt it will do a whole lot to warm relations though.

I for one hope they don't do anything.... Zealous. The best we can hope for is it might even possibly stabilize the region. Who can tell.

They have an understandable desire for a big bargining chip to limit how much weight the US can throw around in their relations.
I for one would be very suprised to see mushroom clouds over the Middle East any time soon.

Now Korea on the other hand.....

Prabhu Deva

Fair play to them. Now if we could only build one of them here

demonspawn

Iran currently has the third largest proven oil reserves in the world. What's stopping some nuclear power like the U.S. from just strolling in and swiping it like they did in Iraq?

Iran has every right to defend herself against foreign aggression. Maybe if Saddam did have WMD, the U.S. wouldn't have been so quick to rush in and blast the country to smithereens. But they knew well he didn't....

I'm one of many who don't easily fall for this anti-Islamic, anti-Iranian fear mongering and I hope this will give Iranians the peace of mind they deserve.

Prabhu Deva

economically it also makes more sense for them to hold onto the oil till its worth more rather than burning it to generate electricity

mike65

Prabhu Deva wrote: »

Fair play to them. Now if we could only build one of them here

Who is Ireland gonna threaten to nuke

Sand

More than likely a nuclear armed Iran will lead to the various Arab states starting up their own nuclear programs or otherwise attempting to readress the balance of power.

Witcher

mike65 wrote: »

Who is Ireland gonna threaten to nuke

He means a nuclear power plant.

demonspawn

mike65 wrote: »

Who is Ireland gonna threaten to nuke

Our politicians and businessmen?

mike65

Blay wrote: »

He means a nuclear power plant.

Ah, even less chance of that happening, the Greens will have us all chained to chains first.

kev9100

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Israel already possesses weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons before yet despite hating Iran has never used them. Futher to that the principals of mutual assured destruction will ensure Iran does not deploy nukes against Israel.

Yeah, but I have less faith in Iran than I do Isreal to act responsibly and I don't have much faith in Isrel to begin with...

murphaph

Overheal wrote: »

That, or, we could one day witness a Microcosm of M.A.D. in the Middle East.

So it's not all bad news

Personally, I'm effing sick and tired about hearing about the Middle East.

Iwasfrozen

kev9100 wrote: »

Yeah, but I have less faith in Iran than I do Isreal to act responsibly and I don't have much faith in Isrel to begin with...

Do you have any reason for this? Unlike Israel, Iran isn't subjugating and colonising another country.

kev9100

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you have any reason for this? Unlike Israel, Iran isn't subjugating and colonising another country.

No, but Iran is run by a bunch of religouis nuts who brutally squashed the results of an election they didn't like.

Look, I'm no fan of Isreal, but I think a nuclear Iran is a very bad idea.

Iwasfrozen

kev9100 wrote: »

No, but Iran is run by a bunch of religouis nuts

So is Israel.

kev9100 wrote: »

who brutally squashed the results of an election they didn't like.

That doesn't prove that Iran is dangerous with nuclear weapons. After all the Soviet Union and China, both undemocratic states, have never deployed their huge arsenal.

kev9100 wrote: »

Look, I'm no fan of Isreal, but I think a nuclear Iran is a very bad idea.

I'd rather no country have nuclear weapons but in the current situation I'm glad Iran has them. It will ensure America has to call of it's planned invasion.

Einhard

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm one of many who don't easily fall for this anti-Islamic, anti-Iranian fear mongering and I hope this will give Iranians the peace of mind they deserve.

I'm afraid that the Iranian people won't have the peace of mind they deserve as long as they are the subjects of a brutal theocracy.

KeithAFC

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Israel already possesses weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons before yet despite hating Iran has never used them. Futher to that the principals of mutual assured destruction will ensure Iran does not deploy nukes against Israel.

Iran is runned by religious nutters though.

KeithAFC

The moment Israel thinks Iran will attack them or even have a nuclear bomb, they will send the jets over and take care of them. And good for them is what i say.

Iwasfrozen

KeithAFC wrote: »

Iran is runned by religious nutters though.

So is Israel.

Overheal

KeithAFC wrote: »

The moment Israel thinks Iran will attack them or even have a nuclear bomb, they will send the jets over and take care of them. And good for them is what i say.

That would be what the S-300s are for then.

Iwasfrozen

KeithAFC wrote: »

The moment Israel thinks Iran will attack them or even have a nuclear bomb, they will send the jets over and take care of them. And good for them is what i say.

Hardly, Israel is a country of 7.6 million people. Iran, 74 million. Do the maths. Any war against Iran without U.S help could only end badly for Israel.

tuxy

Nuclear power plant = Instant production of Nuclear warheads?

Iwasfrozen

tuxy wrote: »

Nuclear power plant = Instant production of Nuclear warheads?

Nuclear power plant = Ability to produce Nuclear warheads.

Eliot Rosewater

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear power plant = Ability to produce Nuclear warheads.

That's not true, actually. The fuel needed for a power plant has to be enriched to something like 3 or 4 percent. The material needed for a missile has to be enriched to something like 90%. They really are incomparable in this regard.

The exact figures were sourced from Wikipedia, so I can't possibly be wrong. :pac:

tuxy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear power plant = Ability to produce Nuclear warheads.

Russia seemed to have engineered the construction schedule, already delayed for years, for leverage to encourage Iran to abandon a domestic program for enriching uranium. Russia has promised to provide all the fuel the plant will require and has demanded return of spent fuel.

Iwasfrozen

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's not true, actually. The fuel needed for a power plant has to be enriched to something like 3 or 4 percent. The material needed for a missile has to be enriched to something like 90%. They really are incomparable in this regard.

The exact figures were sourced from Wikipedia, so I can't possibly be wrong. :pac:

Ah, guess you learn something new everyday.

Eliot Rosewater

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ah, guess you learn something new everyday.

That doesn't make your point totally redundant though. One could easily argue that a country with nuclear power has a far better chance of creating nuclear weapons than a country without such power. So you could view the opening of this power plant as a stepping stone towards atomic nastiness, extreme Islamic style.

tuxy

Right and Iran is not even capable of producing low-enriched uranium never mind high-enriched. All this thread has been about the impact of Iran having access to nuclear warheads. The real topic is them being able to produce electricity from a nuclear power plant and I don't see how this is an issue at all.

KeithAFC

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hardly, Israel is a country of 7.6 million people. Iran, 74 million. Do the maths. Any war against Iran without U.S help could only end badly for Israel.

You would be surprised what a good defence and plenty of nukes and weapons could do.

Iwasfrozen

KeithAFC wrote: »

You would be surprised what a good defence and plenty of nukes and weapons could do.

Israel wouldn't be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against a country that could respond in kind.

Shea O'Meara

Iran has the complete right to do what it likes within its own borders.

Are we now worried that they might overstep their bounds and play bully boy like say the United States, Israel, Britain?

If I were Iranian I would actually be sleeping more soundly as in my view an invasion of Iran was only a matter of time although any move in the nuclear direction may now give 'the good guys' pause for thought or the reason they were drooling for.

Was I comfortable with George W. having command? And lets face it, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that President Pallin might be in charge of all that world ending firepower one day. Another nut job Christian.

KeithAFC

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Israel wouldn't be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against a country that could respond in kind.

Respond in what way? Iran does not have the fire power to take Israel out.

tuxy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

One could easily argue that a country with nuclear power has a far better chance of creating nuclear weapons than a country without such power.

I'm not sure this is the case. I don't know how the process works so someone correct me if I'm wrong but having a power plant will be of no help in producing high-enriched uranium. They may well be working on the process to enrich but that would be a totally different project and the Russians certainly would not be helping them with that. The fact that it has taken 36 years to get this plant up and running and only because of major help from the Russians shows that Irian are probably a long way off from enriching uranium.

Iwasfrozen

KeithAFC wrote: »

Respond in what way? Iran does not have the fire power to take Israel out.

They certainly do. The Iranian Ghadr-110 missile has a maximum range of between 2,500 and 3,000 km.

Byron85

Am I the only that noticed the following little piece of information?

But Russia says a deal with Iran, under which it will both supply Bushehr and take back the spent fuel - which could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium - means it cannot help any Iranian efforts to build a bomb.

tuxy

Byron85 wrote: »

Am I the only that noticed the following little piece of information?

I've been trying to address it in my last few posts.

Einhard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So is Israel.

It's not, and even if it were, the people get a genuine choice every few years to remove whatever government is in power. Unlike, say, in Iran.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hardly, Israel is a country of 7.6 million people. Iran, 74 million. Do the maths. Any war against Iran without U.S help could only end badly for Israel.

It's not about population. In the Yom Kippur War, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel with support form practically every Arab state on the block, and got their arses handed to them on a plate. Israel has by far the most advanced military in the ME, and more than that, have a militarised civilian population who they could call up in the event of a major war. Furthermore, many Israelis would view any such war as one fought for the very existence of their nation, and would fight accrdingly. The average Iranian solider isn't going to have anything like that motivation.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear power plant = Ability to produce Nuclear warheads.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Iran has the complete right to do what it likes within its own borders.

Are we now worried that they might overstep their bounds and play bully boy like say the United States, Israel, Britain?

Iran has a right to do what it likes within its own borders, but equally the international community have the right to respond with sanctions. You can't argue for Iran's freedom in conducting her internal affairs, whilst criticising other nations for running their foreign affairs as they see fit. America and the UK and the EU have every right to suspend trade with any nation they deem fit.

Also, neither the Americans nor the Israelis are the most worried about the development of an iranian bomb. It's her Arab neighbours who have most to fear. Iran has increasingly sought to throw her weight around that particular neighbourhood, and her swagger is only likely to be increased with the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal.

However, as tuxy and Byron have pointed out, this development, on the face of it, brings her no closer to achieving such a goal.

Iwasfrozen

Einhard wrote: »

It's not, and even if it were, the people get a genuine choice every few years to remove whatever government is in power. Unlike, say, in Iran.

That doesn't change the fact that Israel, like Iran is run by religious nutters. Which was your original point.

Einhard wrote: »

It's not about population. In the Yom Kippur War, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel with support form practically every Arab state on the block, and got their arses handed to them on a plate. Israel has by far the most advanced military in the ME, and more than that, have a militarised civilian population who they could call up in the event of a major war. Furthermore, many Israelis would view any such war as one fought for the very existence of their nation, and would fight accrdingly. The average Iranian solider isn't going to have anything like that motivation.

Everything is about population. I know Israel was victorious during the Yum Kippur war but the Islamic countries weren't exactly going all in. Egypt sent in 300,000 men, Syria 60,000 and Iraq 30,000. Israel sent in 415,000 so the numbers were actually on their side. It sould also be noted that Iran did not fight in this war.

Now Eqypt, Syria and Iraq have a combined population of 132,169,110. Do you honestly think that Israel's technology would have saved them in the event these countries deciding to commit more troops to the offense? Don't be silly.

BlaasForRafa

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hardly, Israel is a country of 7.6 million people. Iran, 74 million. Do the maths. Any war against Iran without U.S help could only end badly for Israel.

If you're going to post something that dumb why don't you take out an atlas to check where both countries are? Iraq and Jordan seperate both countries so there is no suggestion of a land campaign by either country.

Its ironic that Iran would accept Israeli arms and advisors when it was in need in its war against Iraq but would then attack Israel by proxy on every occasion it could. Iran with nuclear weapons would make the region vastly more dangerous.

Israel has the capablility to make long range strikes, whether it chooses to do so or chooses to let the UN do its job is another question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6xApA38InA

Einhard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that Israel, like Iran is run by religious nutters. Which was your original point.

It wasn't my point actually. Someone else made it. I merely clarified your response. In any case, Israel isn't run by religious nutters, any more than Ireland is run by Jackie Healy Rae. Likud depends for support on some right wing religious groups, but the rest of the coalition parties are secular.

Everything is about population. I know Israel was victorious during the Yum Kippur war but the Islamic countries weren't exactly going all in. Egypt sent in 300,000 men, Syria 60,000 and Iraq 30,000. Israel sent in 415,000 so the numbers were actually on their side. It sould also be noted that Iran did not fight in this war.

Now Eqypt, Syria and Iraq have a combined population of 132,169,110. Do you honestly think that Israel's technology would have saved them in the event these countries deciding to commit more troops to the offense? Don't be silly.

Do you honestly think that Egypt, Syria and Iraq (?) are going to send every last man, woman and child pouring across the Sinai, the Syrian desert and the Jordan river? And I'm the silly one?

It's really not about populatiuon, but military capability. That's quite a simple concept. There's not much use in having a massive population to draw upon if you don't the time to train them, the basic weapons to equip them, the rations to supply them, and most importantly, the advanced weaponry systems to support them. The population of China in the 19th century was many multiples that of all the European nations combined, yet she found herself humbled by relatively small European expeditionary forces. And why? Because, despite her overwhelmingnumerical advantage, she simply didn't the the military capability to resist. And it's the same in the Middle East today. And it's why Israel has survived repeated attempts by her neighbours to overcome her by force.

Overheal

Byron85 wrote: »

Am I the only that noticed the following little piece of information?

Yeah but Russia has had the ability to enrich Uranium since the start of the Nuclear Age.

If anything I always suspected they might be bluffing about their number of missiles probably not though: regulated to f*ck.

wes

Nothing to see here, as this plant is being inspected, and poses little or no danger to proliferation.

I remain unconvinced by the US's claims of a active Iranian Nuclear weapons program, as I saw this dog and pony show once before.

demonspawn

wes wrote: »

Nothing to see here, as this plant is being inspected, and poses little or no danger to proliferation.

I remain unconvinced by the US's claims of a active Iranian Nuclear weapons program, as I saw this dog and pony show once before.

Aye, it's the boy who cried wolf isn't it? The U.S. are gonna be hard pressed for support when they do actually face an imminent threat. Shame really because I actually love the U.S. despite all it's faults. It's the birthplace of jazz, blues, and rock and roll ffs!!

Ping Chow Chi

Overheal wrote:

Iran has also made it clear they will counter any attack on Iran.

Well I would have thought that every country in the world would try their best to counter any attack on them?

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Nothing to see here, as this plant is being inspected, and poses little or no danger to proliferation.

I remain unconvinced by the US's claims of a active Iranian Nuclear weapons program, as I saw this dog and pony show once before.

Well of course, Iran is an Islamic country so it can do no wrong, its only those damn western countries like Israel and the US that should be criticised :rolleyes:

karma_

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Well of course, Iran is an Islamic country so it can do no wrong, its only those damn western countries like Israel and the US that should be criticised :rolleyes:

If a country does wrong it deserves to be criticised.