IAEA inspections underway in Iran

[bit_pattern]

 

[DavidS]

This drivel makes one wonder how Iran, a major exporter of oil, gas and electricity, could possibly survive without nuclear power. Ludicorus.

McHrozni

That one wonders too much about things that don't matter.

That's not relevant to my point that a party desiring nuclear infrastructure -- with high implementation costs that take a long time to recover -- also reasonably desires control to secure its fuel supply. Note also that a proposal to supply fuel suggests that nuclear infrastructure was deemed tolerable. Moving the goalpost to national survival doesn't weaken my assertion that a party desiring nuclear infrastructure would likely not agree (or not comply with an agreement) to be limited to foreign fuel supplies. Using words like "drivel" and "ludicrous" doesn't strengthen your apparent assertion that national survival is a useful criterion for permitting nuclear infrastructure.

 

[McHrozni]

So why was America building the a reactor back in the 70's?

Why is the UAE building a reactor and preparing itself for a post-oil future?

Yeah, ludicrous, astute analysis brah

As expected, you misunderstood the issue entirely. For your excuse to have any merit, Iran would have to be reliant on nuclear power, similar to France or Belgium. With their oil and gas production Iran could quite easily bridge any such crisis. Therefore claims that Iran couldn't survive without nuclear power for a few weeks or so is just retarded excuse-making.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

That one wonders too much about things that don't matter.

That's not relevant to my point that a party desiring nuclear infrastructure -- with high implementation costs that take a long time to recover -- also reasonably desires control to secure its fuel supply. Note also that a proposal to supply fuel suggests that nuclear infrastructure was deemed tolerable. Moving the goalpost to national survival doesn't weaken my assertion that a party desiring nuclear infrastructure would likely not agree (or not comply with an agreement) to be limited to foreign fuel supplies. Using words like "drivel" and "ludicrous" doesn't strengthen your apparent assertion that national survival is a useful criterion for permitting nuclear infrastructure.

The only way this to make any sense is if Iranian nuclear infrastructure was critical to their economic well being. It's not, they have alternatives. Therefore your claims they must have an independent fuel supply is useless.

That Iranian nuclear power is acceptable in no way addresses the issue that their nuclear enrichment activities are.
Secondly, much of Iranian enrichment activities amount to much more than just production of fuel. Why? Are you going to claim nuclear medicine is also absolutely vital for Iran to the point of having to rely on imports being completely intolerable?

Nope DavidS, I think "ludicrous drivel" describes your 'argument' quite well.

McHrozni

 

[bit_pattern]

As expected, you misunderstood the issue entirely. For your excuse to have any merit, Iran would have to be reliant on nuclear power, similar to France or Belgium. With their oil and gas production Iran could quite easily bridge any such crisis. Therefore claims that Iran couldn't survive without nuclear power for a few weeks or so is just retarded excuse-making.

McHrozni

Good thing no one has ever made such claims, eh?

Care to explain why America thought Iran should have nuclear power 30+ years ago? No? Didn't think so

 

[Aepervius]

Here's one flaw in your reasoning: there is no international treaty, nor any basis for a treaty, that would limit GPS-type systems (you forgot Russia by the way). This alone is enough to make this a false equivalence.

Another is that unless your argument is that Iran is spending quite a bit of money, international prestige and is flirting with the possibility of being attacked, to the point of building the facilities to withstand airstrikes, in order to ... make a statement?
If that were true - and I don't think it is - it would be reason enough to keep the nuclear material out of their hands. The same reason can be used to keep SMGs out of hands of 10-year olds.

McHrozni

You can't put nilly willy satellite above your head. There are space treaty you know.

Treaty are only worth the effort people put into respecting them the USA and other country have proven again and again that when the time come the treaty is worth less repecting than breaking, they do break it, or invent new term to bypass it. And frankly they already have nuclear weapon targeted at them by a non signatory to NPT. Why should they bother and not try to protect themselves.

Ah but yes, I am now expecting the rethoric of "they are all amdmen frothing at the mouth trying to genocide israel" card.

 

[Aepervius]

I never knew a nation run by lunatics having access to nuclear weapons was so important to so many people.

North korea is run by lunatic. Iran , not so much. They are run by fanatic, they are run by horride people, and politically disagreeing with them, their rethoric yapping is awful. But lunatic ? No.

 

[McHrozni]

Good thing no one has ever made such claims, eh?

If he didn't his argument is useless. Your call.

Care to explain why America thought Iran should have nuclear power 30+ years ago? No? Didn't think so

Iranian nuclear power is not controversial. Iranian refining of nuclear material without IAEA safeguards and well beyond what is needed for nuclear power is. The latter is also not connected to Iranian nuclear power, if you need to be explained why seek professional help.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

And frankly they already have nuclear weapon targeted at them by a non signatory to NPT. Why should they bother and not try to protect themselves.

I take it you're saying Iran wants to build nuclear weapons?

McHrozni

 

[Aepervius]

Good thing no one has ever made such claims, eh?

Care to explain why America thought Iran should have nuclear power 30+ years ago? No? Didn't think so

It is easy. There are four sort of people from the USA perspective, or so it seems from all the forum blather.

US people which are basically human.
Non US but friendly people which can be supported, but are basically inferior sort of human.
Non US non friendly which can die with open mouth and are dirty monkey.
And the french which are dirty cheese reeking monkey , that they will hate for even existing for reason dating back so many hundred year they forgot.



OK I have a poor humour, so sue me.

 

[JihadJane]

The only way this to make any sense is if Iranian nuclear infrastructure was critical to their economic well being. It's not, they have alternatives. Therefore your claims they must have an independent fuel supply is useless.

What are the alternatives?

Nope DavidS, I think "ludicrous drivel" describes your 'argument' quite well.

Please be adult in your reply.

I take it you're saying Iran wants to build nuclear weapons?

Are you saying Iran wants to build nuclear weapons?

 

[bit_pattern]

If he didn't his argument is useless. Your call.

You have a seriously disturbed logical processing vnetre in your brain.

 

[bit_pattern]

It is easy. There are four sort of people from the USA perspective, or so it seems from all the forum blather.

US people which are basically human.
Non US but friendly people which can be supported, but are basically inferior sort of human.
Non US non friendly which can die with open mouth and are dirty monkey.
And the french which are dirty cheese reeking monkey , that they will hate for even existing for reason dating back so many hundred year they forgot.



OK I have a poor humour, so sue me.

Mine must be at least as poor as yours

 

[McHrozni]

What are the alternatives?

Oil, gas and hydro - Iran is already an exporter of electricity. A short-term shortage of nuclear fuel would do little harm to them.

Are you saying Iran wants to build nuclear weapons?

I'm saying that's the only way to make sense of their nuclear program. It's also possible their leadership is just more insane than we've been let to believe.

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

Good thing no one has ever made such claims, eh?

Care to explain why America thought Iran should have nuclear power 30+ years ago? No? Didn't think so

Was Iran threatening to destroy other countries 35 years ago? Exporting terrorism? Funding, arming, and training insurgent groups to attack civilians in other countries that never threatened Iran? Blowing up Jewish centers in Argentina?

 

[angrysoba]

This drivel makes one wonder how Iran, a major exporter of oil, gas and electricity, could possibly survive without nuclear power. Ludicorus.

McHrozni

I don't believe that Iran is producing nuclear power for purely peaceful reasons but I am so bored of hearing this old talking point. Even if someone were sitting on the largest reserves of oil, gas and "electricity" it wouldn't mean that nuclear power would be of no interest to them. Indeed, if they were an exporter of electricity then the greater the chance of producing it the more their economy would thrive and the more they could export their own fossil fuel assets, or indeed store them for security purposes.

 

[McHrozni]

I don't believe that Iran is producing nuclear power for purely peaceful reasons but I am so bored of hearing this old talking point. Even if someone were sitting on the largest reserves of oil, gas and "electricity" it wouldn't mean that nuclear power would be of no interest to them. Indeed, if they were an exporter of electricity then the greater the chance of producing it the more their economy would thrive and the more they could export their own fossil fuel assets, or indeed store them for security purposes.

Just so you know, what you quoted was a response to a point stating "it is absolutely vital for Iran to have an indenpendent supply of nuclear fuel".

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Just so you know, what you quoted was a response to a point stating "it is absolutely vital for Iran to have an indenpendent supply of nuclear fuel".

McHrozni

Oh, okay. I take it back and you probably noticed I didn't read the whole thread.

 

[McHrozni]

Oh, okay. I take it back and you probably noticed I didn't read the whole thread.

No biggie

McHrozni

 

[Weird Science]

Again: the moral difference between Israel having the bomb (if it has it) and Iran is very simple. Iran wants the bomb so it can commit genocide against the Jewish state, while Israel wants the bomb as a last-ditch insuracne to help deter genocide against it. Besides, a modern democracy having the bomb is very different than a mideaval theocracy having it.