nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Akrasia

samb wrote:

Not if you achieve regime change. They will be dead or in jail, not determined.

Now don't jump to conclusions Akrasia........

and how do 'surgical strikes' achieve 'regme change'? and what happens if the new regime is worse than the one it replaces which is especially likely if the Iranians are really pissed off at the west after being attacked by america.?

Akrasia

samb wrote:

Am I in favour of military action? Would I support such action? NO NO NO...you are idiotic for jumping to such conclusions. All I was saying was that this would be the most effective way of carrying out military action in terms of human casualties. Note ''if a military response is needed, the big question''. I did not ascert an opinion on this question.
I think for many seconds that if america chose to Nuke Iran (with targeted small nukes or a full scale attack) that Iran could do little about it. However as someone has already said THANKFULLY any nuclear attack would cause way to much political trouble for the US.

it doesn't matter whether you are in favour of an invasion, that line of thinking is still idiotic and dangerous. The thought that Nuking Iran would be the least worst way of getting Iran to stop it's nuclear program, is unbelievably stupid and it creates an environment that allows Bush to think he can get away with such an immense crime against humanity.

DoesNotCompute

Even if Iran manages to develop nuclear weapons, I don't think they'd be silly enough to use them on Isreal - if they did, they'd be screwed.

Regime change wouldn't help either - if the Americans managed to get the resources together to usurp the government and replace their leaders, an even more extreme lunatic would take Ahmadinejad's place

Pa ElGrande

Are we being deceived by the media and how do we really find the facts.
Read this:

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

DoesNotCompute

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Are we being deceived by the media and how do we really find the facts.
Read this:

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Excellent find - very enlightening.

sonandheir

Iran feels under threat from the U.S. and is completely justified. look at it's neighbour Iraq who was under constant watch since the first war in the early 90's and still accussed of having WMD's. Does anybody remember all the dodgy satellite photographs Colin Powell produced in front of the U.N. (and sacrificed his career over) to convince them of the threat of Iraq. The Iranians know that the U.S will not let them control those reserves their sitting on, as two of their hostile neigbouring governments have found out. and what if the real problem here is nuclear energy? If a leading Muslim state like Iran were to supply their country with mainly nuclear power and devalue oil paving the way for others to go nuclear. Who's skin would they get under? Maybe the government of a country run by oil men who like to see nothing more than the price of oil go up. what's the worst case scenario? they have to back up their threats with action, attack the country and take over their oil reserves.

I disagree

Manic Moran wrote:

Actually, he's right. There are many instances of Iraqi troops captured/killed prepared for and equipped for chemical warfare. As the Coalition forces don't use chemical weapons, the only conclusion is that they were expecting their own side to use them.

American policy for some time has been that the use of chemical weapons will be retaliated against with the use of nuclear weapons. (All are considered WMDs, the US doesn't make the distinction, especially since the US no longer has chem/bio in service and has no other deterrent). It's enough to make anyone blink, I think.

NTM

In all fairness if I happened to be Saddam Hussein I would use every weapon at my disposal to defeat the infidel and the threat of retaliation wouldn't frighten me to much since 2,000 tanks are already on their way to get me. That's just me of course. Saddam might be a more caring individual.

Dirk Gently

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think America was wrong before the Cuban missile crisis.
In fairness it was a great result for the Soviet Union. Americans seen nothing wrong with having Nukes sitting on the soviet boarders pointed at all their major cities but when the soviets attempted to do the same they were portrayed as agressors. The evil godless commies trying to wipe out humanity..
Result- Cuba didn’t get the missiles and America withdrew its missiles from turkey.
Just shows the hypocrisy of America.

samb

Akrasia wrote:

it doesn't matter whether you are in favour of an invasion, that line of thinking is still idiotic and dangerous. The thought that Nuking Iran would be the least worst way of getting Iran to stop it's nuclear program, is unbelievably stupid and it creates an environment that allows Bush to think he can get away with such an immense crime against humanity.

I never said it was the least worst way. all I meant was that it may be the least harmful military way, which like you I would very much be against. I was quoting from some military expert who was talking about the potential military options.
If Bush decides to take military action, I hope that he does take military advice on the options.

If some has lunatic decided they want to murder me (an action that I would be very much opposed to) I hope they will give me a lethal injection, rather than plant a bomb in my house, killing my entire family:p

Anyway, this quibble is nonsense, I'm broadly in agreement with you on most of your posts below.

Pazaz 21

I was just wondering if this thread is anything like the ones that were written before "Operation Iraqi Freedom", or the Second Gulf War, or whatever you want to call it ?

Pazaz 21

The original question was:

HelterSkelter wrote:

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.

I think most people agree that Iran should be allowed to have a peaceful Nuclear Power Program, its the "Nuclear Weapons" part that we all have a problem with and as many people have said it is a question of not being able to trust the Iran regime with Nuclear Weapons because we do not know what they will do with them.

We assume that they are building them to use, but Britian, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, China,etc have built Nuclear Weapons but haven't used them. I think its down to fear that we believe that Iran will use the bomb if it gets it, its down to the kind of fear that has been instilled in us since the first plane flew into the World Trade Center, and even before that. Its when your told that a terrorist attack can happen at anytime in anyplace. Its not the terrorists who are terrorising us its the Media and the US Government. Nearly every second speech GWB gives is about fighting this or defending that, you rarely hear Blair, Chirac or Bertie Ahern shouting about the need to defend ourselves because, yes it is a problem but its not the apocolypse that the US Administration wants us to beleive it is.

Down through history governments have always had to appease the right wing hawks in the cabinets and military by shouting out about destroying there enemies and generally taking a hard stance. In the USSR, US, Israel and of many more countries this is true. Now i don't know if the Iranian President is a "Nutjob" or not but might it not be possible that this is just a lot of bluster to get him/keep support from the hardline factions in his governmet.

Plus, Why would the Iranian Military be building up all their conventional forces if they are just going to nuke everyone once they get the bomb ? They know that they can't stop the US from bombing them from the sky no matter how many missiles they have? They know that they can't stop a nuclear attack if it was launched at them ? And they know that if they made a nuclear weapon and fired it at Isreal or smuggled into the US or whatever that Iran would be turned into the biggest glass sculpture in the world, so what would be the point ?

P.S. (Read the Sig)

Pa ElGrande

It is worth noting that Tehran has ongoing plans to set up an oil trading exchange to compete with New York's NYMEX and with London's International Petroleum Exchange. In the light of Kudrin's comments, it is significant that the Iranians want to run their oil bourse in euros, not dollars.

Were the Iranians to establish a Middle-East based euro-only oil exchange, the dollar's unique petrocurrency status could unravel. That, in turn, would threaten its broader dominance - which, given America's groaning twin deficit, could seriously hurt the US economy.

Some cite this as the real reason the US wants to attack Iran: to protect the dollar's unique position. I wouldn't go that far, but the prospect of a non-dollar oil exchange in Tehran is certainly an aggravating factor.

The opening of Iran's new oil exchange has recently been delayed. But, having spoken with numerous officials in Tehran, and western consultants who've been working with the Iranians for several years, I think it will go ahead. The exchange entity has already been legally incorporated in Iran and a site purchased to house administrative and regulatory staff.

The reality is that as long as most of Opec's oil - read Saudi Arabia - is priced in dollars, the US currency will retain its hegemony. But the opening of an oil bourse in Tehran, which now looks likely, will signal at least tacit Saudi consent for euro-based oil trading. The US knows this, which is why it is nervous about the dollar's status being questioned.

The threat to a fistful of petrodollars
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/04/23/ccliam23.xml

Behind all the bluster is this issue.

Dirk Gently

Well pointed out El grande.

With all of us here on this thread caught up debating the nuclear issue, myself and others have neglected to look at the bigger picture, and in doing so neglecting the real reasons behind the pressure been put on Iran.
petro dollar v petro euro. Potentially devastating to the petro dollar which could see a drop in valuation if more trade is done in euros.
Again, a clear and present danger to American capital.
solution as always - War under what ever pretence they can get away with.

pete

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Behind all the bluster is this issue.

sounds familiar

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

Pa ElGrande

Tehran, April 26 - Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said on Wednesday that the establishment of Oil Stock Exchange is in its final stage and the bourse will be launched in Iran in the next week.

Iran's oil stock exchange, next week
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=212013&n=32

Lets see how the Americans cope with this.

growler

Nice to see Iran taking the "sharing is caring" approach to nuclear power, if anyone needs access to nuclear technology it has to be Sudan :rolleyes:

"Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said his country is ready to share its nuclear technology with other nations.
Ayatollah Khamenei made the offer during a meeting with visiting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4943782.stm

They really do know how to get under the skin of the West

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Lets see how the Americans cope with this.

I have a feeling that if there are ever military strikes against Iran, one of the missiles might accidently go astray and crash into their new oil exchange. by accident.

growler

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Lets see how the Americans cope with this.

I think it would be pretty easy for the US to ignore it, without all OPEC members signing up to a Euro based exchange , the US could get Saudi to increase its output until Iran started to feel the pinch or push for sanctions preventing Iranian oil sales for a time.

Iran needs cash (in the short term) more than the west needs Iranian oil.

Whats the incentive for the big oil companies to deal with a new exchange when their reserves are in dollars ? any move to a Euro based trading would only help devalue the dollar and damage their own wealth.

they might be able to work with china ( not sure how much non dollar reserves china has) but I believe that China's national oil company CNOC would also be somewhat dependent on western companies (refiners, tankers etc) to deliver.

Nice posturing from Iran but not likely to come to much imho.

growler

Akrasia wrote:

I have a feeling that if there are ever military strikes against Iran, one of the missiles might accidently go astray and crash into their new oil exchange. by accident.

not that inconceivable that they could "build" a virtual exchange.

However,its not like the world's largest oil companies are going to send their traders off to Iran anyway, the lack of bars, strip clubs, brothels would make it very difficult to convince any of that breed to leave New York, London or Singapore.

RedPlanet

growler wrote:

not that inconceivable that they could "build" a virtual exchange.

However,its not like the world's largest oil companies are going to send their traders off to Iran anyway, the lack of bars, strip clubs, brothels would make it very difficult to convince any of that breed to leave New York, London or Singapore.

Actually prostitution exists in Iran and infact they alledgedly debated legalising it in 2002.

amp2000

growler wrote:

I think it would be pretty easy for the US to ignore it, without all OPEC members signing up to a Euro based exchange , the US could get Saudi to increase its output until Iran started to feel the pinch or push for sanctions preventing Iranian oil sales for a time.

Iran needs cash (in the short term) more than the west needs Iranian oil.

You must be joking, nobody said they were going to impose sanctions on the oil, I think the americans said something to the effect that sanctions wouldn't involve oil. They are stupid but not stupid enough to tell iran they dont need those 4 million barrels a day, because they do! Secondly SA can't increase their output past 10 million a day, never mind making up a 4 million shortfall, this is just wishful thinking on your behalf.

Anyone who thinks this can have a happy ending is seriously deluded.

IMO this is how it's going to play out....
The US strike iran
Iran says **** you, no more oil, all for china now.
Iran takes out a couple of tankers in the straits of hormuz shutting in 25% of global oil supply
Straight away a barrel of crude rockets on the nymex
China takes steps to secure oil for itself and announces it's diversifying into other currencies
US dollar goes into freefall & we enter a global recession (That's if the economy doesn't crash)

The above can & most probably will be played out in the space of a few hours, most people won't know what hit them while people like me will be hoarding petrol, food & water. I know there is probably people sniggering reading this thinking it will never happen so to them I just have this to say, good luck feeding your family when the supermarkets are empty.

Anyway, thats just my 2 cents

Gurgle

amp2000 wrote:

IMO this is how it's going to play out....
The US strike iran
Iran says **** you, no more oil, all for china now.
Iran takes out a couple of tankers in the straits of hormuz shutting in 25% of global oil supply
Straight away a barrel of crude rockets on the nymex
China takes steps to secure oil for itself and announces it's diversifying into other currencies
US dollar goes into freefall & we enter a global recession (That's if the economy doesn't crash)

You left out:
Iran wipes Israel.
Euro takes over from dollar as international currency.
European economy strengthens as sanctions are imposed against US.
US gets arse kicked over 10 years in attempt to occupy Iran, complete with bankruptcy similar to Russia in the cold war.
New world order - EU, China & India at the helm.
Oil age passes into history.

Pazaz 21

Why would the European or Global economy necessarily automatically go into recession. Surely if the petro-dollar becomes the petro-euro isn't that a good thing for us ? I'm sure China/India/Latin America etc can pick up the trade we would lose with the US and wouldn't we get the trade that other countries are doing with the US sent to the EU?

amp2000

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Why would the European or Global economy necessarily automatically go into recession.

Iran are playing the oil card, even if the chinese dont announce they are moving from the dollar we are still looking at a 25% cut in supply if the iranians start hitting the straits of hormuz, that's what will ultimately cause a global recession, an energy crisis.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Surely if the petro-dollar becomes the petro-euro isn't that a good thing for us ?

Not really, a bourse means a basket of currencies & if we see the US economy go down people will lose faith in all fiat currencies. I reckon it's far more likely we'll be going back to a gold backed currency.

Anyway, again just my 2 cents, all I really know for certain is if they hit iran alot of bad things will happen :eek:

bonkey

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Why would the European or Global economy necessarily automatically go into recession.

Because the US economy would go into recession, and the European and Glocal economies invariably follow it.

I'm sure China/India/Latin America etc can pick up the trade we would lose with the US and wouldn't we get the trade that other countries are doing with the US sent to the EU?

Nice theory, and that is what could conceptually happen....but that would be the restructuring that took us out of the recession.

jc

[Deleted User]

Gurgle wrote:

New world order - EU, China & India at the helm.
Oil age passes into history.

What abt Russia and Brazil? Both of which have abundent resources, and steadily improving economies....

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

Because the US economy would go into recession, and the European and Glocal economies invariably follow it.

Only for the last century-ish.
And tbh, with the emerging eastern economies its hard to picture the US holding its position as the economic super-power it has been.
(S. America and Africa to follow in the next few decades)

Deleted User wrote:

What abt Russia and Brazil? Both of which have abundent resources, and steadily improving economies

I've yet to see 'Made in Russia' or 'Made in Brazil' on anything.

[Deleted User]

Gurgle wrote:

I've yet to see 'Made in Russia' or 'Made in Brazil' on anything.

Theres more to an economy that what is exported to other countries. Russia has vast tracks of natural resources including oil & gas, which are likely to be more valuable than any export that the US/or China would produce.....

But even then, I have seen items bought in Europe that had "made in Russia" on them.

As for Brazil, they also have a decent amount of resources to play with especially if they can combine with some of the other S.American countries. Added to which they have a modern military, and civilian nuclear capabilities. A rising star, which doesn't have the massive dependency that China has for external oil sources to fuel its modernisation.

It will be the nations that have the needed resources and are capable of retaining hold of them, that will be the powers of the future.

Pazaz 21

bonkey wrote:

Nice theory, and that is what could conceptually happen....but that would be the restructuring that took us out of the recession.

jc

Fair point, i suppose Europe et al could come out of this stronger then ever, but it would be after a pretty devastating recession/energy crisis.

bonkey

Gurgle wrote:

Only for the last century-ish.

Before which there was no global economy. So basically, since there has been one, we've been tied to the US. I'm not suggesting its perpetual, merely that there is little to suggest that in the short term (which this scenario is realistically looking at) that it would suddenly cease to apply.