TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Iran joins nuclear technology club
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »

Iran joins nuclear technology club

quote:

Iran joins nuclear technology club AM - Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 08:00:37 Reporter: Matt Brown TONY EASTLEY: Iran has announced that it's joined the club of nations with nuclear technology, and in doing so has put new fire and concern into the international debate about Iran's nuclear intentions. The Iranian President's dramatic statement came as a surprise. (sound of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking) MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD (translated): I'm announcing officially that Iran has now joined the countries which have nuclear technology. This is a very historic moment and it's thanks to the Iranian people and their beliefs. This is the start of progress for our country. TONY EASTLEY: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists Iran's ability to enrich uranium to make nuclear fuel is purely for civilian use, not for the production of nuclear weapons. But Western powers fear that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb and the US has responded to the latest news by saying that Iran is "moving in the wrong direction". Matt Brown is the ABC's Middle East Correspondent. (to Matt Brown) Matt, up until now there's been some speculation about Iran's capabilities, but the President seems to have made it crystal clear. MATT BROWN: He has Tony. This has been one of the most contentious issues in the Middle East and indeed the world. Iran's an avowed enemy of Israel, it has missiles that can reach Jerusalem and capitals in Europe and it's got a hardline Shi'ite Muslim leadership in control. So how close have they been to producing a nuclear weapon despite international efforts to rein them in? They've given a decisive answer today in a three-pronged public relations offensive. First, the head of the nuclear energy agency announced that Iran's enriched uranium to 3.5 per cent purity. He says that paves the way for enrichment on an industrial scale. Then the hardline President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged the nation's nuclear officials to step up their production of nuclear fuel, and the former president said that a controversial nuclear facility where centrifuge machines linked together in a sort of cascade have been used to enrich the uranium had been involved in the process. TONY EASTLEY: So what's the significance of this do you think, both for the region and for the world? MATT BROWN: There are two basic areas, technical and political. On the technical side, they are claiming enrichment only to the level required for nuclear energy. That's what Tehran says this is all about � energy not a nuclear bomb. But enrichment in itself is a very complex technical process. If this is true, it's an important milestone. It's one of those technical moments where a new world of possibilities opens up. Even though Iran says that this is only about peaceful use of nuclear energy, this a new era in the Middle East. TONY EASTLEY: And what about the political significance of it Matt? MATT BROWN: On the political side, a lot this technology has been developed in secrecy � that's angered the international community. The Russians have been helping Iran with their nuclear energy program and they're reluctant about sanctions. And the Europeans have important trade links � they're reluctant too to take action against Iran, but together with the United States and in the International Atomic Energy Agency, they've all set a deadline for the end of this month for Iran to prove that it has peaceful intentions and to stop the enrichment process in its tracks. Indeed, the head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei was due to visit Iran tomorrow in the lead-up to making a crucial report about his process. Well Iran has just thumbed its nose at all of them and raised the stakes considerably. TONY EASTLEY: Matt Brown.

The conditions are getting worse everyday.
I really don't know what this crazy presedent is up to.

I wanna see what will be the national unions response to this.

meh we're pure hypocrits to stop everyone else from developing nuclear technology when we have it ourselves... are we on sum sort of pedestal that makes us special? if we want the world to stop... we gotta throw away our nukes... and i dont see that happening any time soon...

quote:

Originally posted by GQ_IRAQI meh we're pure hypocrits to stop everyone else from developing nuclear technology when we have it ourselves... are we on sum sort of pedestal that makes us special? if we want the world to stop... we gotta throw away our nukes... and i dont see that happening any time soon...

um. isn't canada is a nuke-free country. i thought that we never made them ouselves, even though at one point we housed some for the americans, but that was years ago (1984??)

Canada also signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which Canada signed in 1996.

there are seven countries that are known to have exploded nuclear weapons; the United States of America, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India and Pakistan, while Israel is suspect. canada is definitely not on that list

quote:

Originally posted by spitty um. isn't canada is a nuke-free country. i thought that we never made them ouselves, even though at one point we housed some for the americans, but that was years ago (1984??) Canada also signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which Canada signed in 1996. there are seven countries that are known to have exploded nuclear weapons; the United States of America, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India and Pakistan, while Israel is suspect. canada is definitely not on that list

i think GQ_Iraqi is talking about nuclear power not nuclear weapones.
there are 31 countries including Canada(here is a LIST) that have nuclear power only 8 of of the 31 have weapones.

Iran is asking to have power but the worry is if they have hidden intentions to develope weapones.

quote:

Originally posted by GQ_IRAQI meh we're pure hypocrits to stop everyone else from developing nuclear technology when we have it ourselves... are we on sum sort of pedestal that makes us special? if we want the world to stop... we gotta throw away our nukes... and i dont see that happening any time soon...

It's about principal. If we let Iran develop nuclear technology, then other countries are going to say, "Hey, if Iran was allowed to develop nuclear technology, why can't we?" Then you have a problem. Besides, given the current government in place, Iran isn't exactly the ideal country to even have at risk of developing nuclear weapons.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure the reason global society does not want Iran to develop nuclear technology is because they are are not being cooperative with the IAEA.

quote:

Originally posted by Plump Funk there are 31 countries including Canada(here is a LIST) that have nuclear power only 8 of of the 31 have weapones.

Only 7 have declared and are confirmed to have weapons; USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India. North Korea has declared themselves to be a nuclear power but have not conducted any tests. Isreal is suspected of being a nuclear power, largely due to their military relationship with the US. Canada likely has US owned nuclear weapons on our soil (launch systems were installed near North Bay back in the 60s.... at that time it was said the warheads would be kept in Detroit and taken to North Bay and installed if needed.... if you understand the time constraints of ICBMs then you understand this is simply not possible therefore it is suspected the missles are armed). South Africa was a nuclear power but they have since destroyed their stockpile.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Only 7 have declared and are confirmed to have weapons; USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India. North Korea has declared themselves to be a nuclear power but have not conducted any tests. Isreal is suspected of being a nuclear power, largely due to their military relationship with the US. Canada likely has US owned nuclear weapons on our soil (launch systems were installed near North Bay back in the 60s.... at that time it was said the warheads would be kept in Detroit and taken to North Bay and installed if needed.... if you understand the time constraints of ICBMs then you understand this is simply not possible therefore it is suspected the missles are armed). South Africa was a nuclear power but they have since destroyed their stockpile.

the 8th that i added was North Korea not Canada, didnt NK confirm they had them?

quote:

Originally posted by Plump Funk the 8th that i added was north korea, didnt they confirm they had them?

NK declared they had them but have not tested them and no intellegence (made public anyway) has confirmed it. They did test a launching system (which could carry a nuclear warhead) that was capable of hitting Japan but they have not tested any warhead.

You know what I can't understand? Maybe someone can clarify..


North Korea confirms, that it has Nuclear Weapons, nuclear technology and so on. Yet Iran that still has a long way to go in order to produce nuclear weapons causes the international community to stir.

Am I wrong, or hasn't North Korea been just as great a threat as Iran has to the international community?

Am I wrong, or hasn't North Korea effectively extorted, money, oil, food and etc.. by leveraging it's nuclear power from the U.S and other countries?

Am I wrong, or doesn't the international community seem a bit hypocritical by using diplomacy with North Korea and force with Iran?

quote:

Originally posted by drgoodvibe You know what I can't understand? Maybe someone can clarify.. North Korea confirms, that it has Nuclear Weapons, nuclear technology and so on. Yet Iran that still has a long way to go in order to produce nuclear weapons causes the international community to stir. Am I wrong, or hasn't North Korea been just as great a threat as Iran has to the international community? Am I wrong, or hasn't North Korea effectively extorted, money, oil, food and etc.. by leveraging it's nuclear power from the U.S and other countries? Am I wrong, or doesn't the international community seem a bit hypocritical by using diplomacy with North Korea and force with Iran?

North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, they have not confirmed this (no test = no confirmation).

North Korea and Iran are very different situations. First - North Korea does not have the industrial capacity to manufacture weapons on a large scale.... Iran does. Second - North Korea is willing to negotiate with the international community.... Iran is not. Third - Iran has the capacity to use it's weapons (if developed) against several of the US's friends and economically important areas.... North Korea really only threatens Japan. Fourth - North Korea is motivated by economic concerns..... Iran is motivated by ideology. Fifth - North Korea is situated in a relatively stable area of the world.... Iran, not so much.

I think the first and fourth are the most significant of all. The world is pretty certain that the North Koreans do not have the resources to actually develop a viable nuclear program and they can be easily bought off for minimal economic concessions. Iran on the other hand could aquire the resources to develop a viable program and their ideological motivations are not easily dealt with.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, they have not confirmed this (no test = no confirmation). North Korea and Iran are very different situations. First - North Korea does not have the industrial capacity to manufacture weapons on a large scale.... Iran does. Second - North Korea is willing to negotiate with the international community.... Iran is not. Third - Iran has the capacity to use it's weapons (if developed) against several of the US's friends and economically important areas.... North Korea really only threatens Japan. Fourth - North Korea is motivated by economic concerns..... Iran is motivated by ideology. Fifth - North Korea is situated in a relatively stable area of the world.... Iran, not so much. I think the first and fourth are the most significant of all. The world is pretty certain that the North Koreans do not have the resources to actually develop a viable nuclear program and they can be easily bought off for minimal economic concessions. Iran on the other hand could aquire the resources to develop a viable program and their ideological motivations are not easily dealt with.

That clarifies things!

Everyone should be allowed to have their nukes. Otherwise, some people will go on bullying other people i.e. airstrikes in foreign countries. I won't name names... that would just be inflammatory.

quote:

Originally posted by psychosomatica Everyone should be allowed to have their nukes.

Sorry but that's just stupid.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH Sorry but that's just stupid.

Okay. So we should just keep the power to a select few. Great idea... as if jealousy has never been an issue in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by spitty there are seven countries that are known to have exploded nuclear weapons; the United States of America, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India and Pakistan, while Israel is suspect.

Obviously Israel has them

quote:

Originally posted by psychosomatica Okay. So we should just keep the power to a select few. Great idea... as if jealousy has never been an issue in the past.

I'd rather deal with jealousy than unstable states who could use nukes at any given time just because their leader is too caught up in his own idealogical issues.

Also, NK is restrained by China from doing anything really stupid and if Kim Jong Il (current NK leader) does something stupid, China will intervene with military if necessary.

China has too much economic relationship with Japan and South Korea to allow NK to do something stupid.

Iran on the other hand... Well, any leader of a nation who says stupid things like what he's been saying deserves a punch in the balls. Repeatly.

Scary part is I do not believe no one exactly understands why Iran chose to make noise at this time. (Maybe Iran is going for leadership of an anti US allaince)

quote:

Originally posted by psychosomatica Everyone should be allowed to have their nukes. Otherwise, some people will go on bullying other people i.e. airstrikes in foreign countries. I won't name names... that would just be inflammatory.

Well, this depends on whether there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' on this planet.

While nations are driven by self interest, and there are so many shades of grey in modern world politics, we, as Canadians, are still allied with particular nations so does that mean we're allied with the 'good guys' or not?

I dunno about you, but I'd rather be buddies of US and UK than Iran or North Korea or Zimbabwe.

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH I'd rather deal with jealousy than unstable states who could use nukes at any given time just because their leader is too caught up in his own idealogical issues.

Perhaps you've forgotten that there was something called the "Cold War" and in this "Cold War" there was definitely enough nuclear power to level the planet. It didn't happen because people suddenly realized they had responsibility along with their new found power. Same goes with India and Pakistan.

quote:

Well, this depends on whether there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' on this planet. While nations are driven by self interest, and there are so many shades of grey in modern world politics, we, as Canadians, are still allied with particular nations so does that mean we're allied with the 'good guys' or not? I dunno about you, but I'd rather be buddies of US and UK than Iran or North Korea or Zimbabwe.

I wasn't really referring to good guys or bad guys. It's really all about people in inferior positions trying to catch up to those in the superior positions. Those in the superior positions usually use/abuse their positions for self-interest, leaving the inferiors behind.

quote:

Originally posted by psychosomatica Perhaps you've forgotten that there was something called the "Cold War" and in this "Cold War" there was definitely enough nuclear power to level the planet. It didn't happen because people suddenly realized they had responsibility along with their new found power. Same goes with India and Pakistan.

Well, the threat of your country being turned into a parking lot if you ever use a nuke against another country is pretty good safe measure.

quote:

I wasn't really referring to good guys or bad guys. It's really all about people in inferior positions trying to catch up to those in the superior positions. Those in the superior positions usually use/abuse their positions for self-interest, leaving the inferiors behind.

And having a nuke will certainly give 'inferior' powers same clout as the 'superior' powers? Unless a nation can develop strong enough conventional military to project its power globally (and only nation that can effectively do that is US atm) it's pointless having a nuke, other than for propaganda and deterring other nation from invading yours. Even then, using nuke for self defence will probably turn the entire world against you.

Unless a nation has economic power to back up its military power, it's pointless having a weapon that you'll mostly likely not use. (And bloody expensive too) Having a nuke doesn't give automatic economic advantages. (You can ask North Korea how that worked out for them)

quote:

Originally posted by psychosomatica Perhaps you've forgotten that there was something called the "Cold War" and in this "Cold War" there was definitely enough nuclear power to level the planet. It didn't happen because people suddenly realized they had responsibility along with their new found power. Same goes with India and Pakistan.

Perhaps you have forgotten about the nuclear deterant system we've come to know and love as "mutually assured destruction". The nuclear arms race was predicated on this theory. Each "side" wanted to possess sufficient enough weapons to assure that their opponant would be completely destroyed if they were ever to use nuclear weapons against them. Due to the time lag between the launching of ICBMs and their arrival at target there was sufficient time for any offensive move to be detected and responded too. The response in all probablility would be a launching of all warheads as it would be impossible to launch any warheads after the detonation of the enemy's missles. All sides knew this, if they ever attacked another nuclear power (or their allies) with nuclear weapons the end result would be the total destruction of their own nation. That is why no one ever launched the missles.

The unfortunate reality with a country such as Iran, driven by ideology, is that they may believe their destruction to be fair trade for the advancement of their ideological beliefs. See, the cold war was about territory and people aren't willing to destroy the territory they already have in order to aquire more territory therefore the MAD theory works. Iran doesn't care about territory, they are driven by theology. People are willing to die for theology, and a theocratic country such as Iran could, conceivably, be willing to destroy itself for theology.

quote:

Originally posted by psychosomatica Perhaps you've forgotten

No actually I haven't forgotten but thanks for reminding me anyways what this "Cold War" was about. Also, these are two completely different situations. The USSR, nor the States, would risk sending out their nukes because if they did, that would mean their own destruction. That was never an option. In this case though, death is an option.

edit: what Moral said.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The unfortunate reality with a country such as Iran, driven by ideology, is that they may believe their destruction to be fair trade for the advancement of their ideological beliefs. See, the cold war was about territory and people aren't willing to destroy the territory they already have in order to aquire more territory therefore the MAD theory works. Iran doesn't care about territory, they are driven by theology. People are willing to die for theology, and a theocratic country such as Iran could, conceivably, be willing to destroy itself for theology.

I think you're wrong on this.

As much as they want to chant 'Insh'allah' and throw themselves at the infidels with a bomb strapped on them (no offence to moderate muslims), these people are not stupid.

I don't think these people are willing to sacrifice themselves to merely hurt US. Not to mention that the average Iranian have no desire to get themselves blown up because their politicians and generals did somethiing stupid to piss off US.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.