|
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
Ya i have a friend whos a Chemical Engineer & he was telling me on how in his line of work people feel bad for Iran. Because they are sitting on a ton of oil, but they dont have the refinerys to covert it to fuel. |
Yet they'd rather violate global sentiment and spend billions developing a nuclear infrastructure whereby they'd need to import uranium instead of simply building non-controversial infrastructure to capitalize on their massive reserves of oil, which they can use at no cost to themselves. And this is because they desperately need to provide more power to their people.
Something just doesn't smell right.
| quote: | | Who threatened whom first? Who started this? US.. Bush labelled three countries 'Axis of Evils' out of nowhere all of a sudden and said world should get rid of them... so by your logic; shoudn't we be stripping US of its nukes first? |
Purple--if you think this is new sentiment that originated with the Bush administration, you are sorely mistaken. I don't think logic suits you. Go read the friggin NNPT. I believe Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy sources for civilian use, but not when they openly claim they interested in it from the perspective of acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is a blatant violation of the treaty they signed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...feration_Treaty
| quote: | Five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). These were the only states possessing such weapons at the time the treaty was opened to signature, and are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" technology to other states, and non-NWS parties agree not to seek or develop nuclear weapons.
The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". In January 2006, Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers. |
| quote: | Third pillar: the right to peacefully use nuclear technology
Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactions for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.
For some states, this third pillar of the NPT, which allows uranium enrichment for fuel reasons, seems to be a major loophole. However, the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Peaceful uranium enrichment can arguably be considered a small step away from developing nuclear warheads, and this can be done by withdrawing from the NPT. No state is known to have successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to NPT inspection.
Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed. |
So it's more Iran's rhetoric that is the reason they are being deprived of this great energy source that will finally give them energy independence.
|
