If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Y would Iran want a nuclear power plant?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Iran is rich in both natural gas and oil. So why would they want a nuclear power plant? And with the 100 or so extremist, Muslim clerics running the country, why wouldn't they use it to create nuclear weapons?
Once again, Russia and Muslim extremists are underestimating America's resolve to prevent another 9/11 or worst.
Once again, Russia and Muslim extremists are underestimating America's resolve to prevent another 9/11 or worst.
0
Comments
You continue to make the most illogical leaps of assumption based purely on the continuing fearmongering the Bush gang are gleefully drowning the nation in.
Frankly pnj, nuclear energy is cheap and efficient energy by comparison to extractive sources like oil and natural gas.
Would you want other nations at some future point dictating to us what forms of energy we are or are not allowed to develop?
Sooner or later our intrusion into the sovereign rights of other nations to determine their own development paths will have severe repercussions on how the world treats us when our time as the sole super power (or any super power at all) comes to a close.
I'm glad you and Aladdin and MR continue to express opinions to me. My statements are thoughts at the time...not convictions.
The situation in NK is as much our fault thanks to the Bush admin's backing out of the agreement that originally provided the impetus for NK to cease its nuclear development. Despite what the sanitised and non-contextual reports you are permitted to see on the news in the US might be claiming, the reality is that Bush and co broke the agreement first and then subsequently refused (and still refuses) to reopen direct bilateral discussions with NK. This brinkmanship on NK's part was merely their only ace for trying to force Bush's hand to talk to them directly.
I would encourage you to do some research into the utter lack of good faith in foreign relations as they are being conducted by this admin, as well as the repercussions their arrogance is having on all our relations with the international community, friends as well as foes. These messes are the hallmark of an admin with little concern for America's integrity and standing in the world, merely how it can attack, conquer or intimidate other nations by force or the threat of force, both military and economic, for corrupt corporate ends.
The title of this thread is one of the funniest in along while.........
Its a power plant are you worried they are going to drop it on you? :crazyeyes
NOOOOOO! That would harm the economy like that naughty Kyoto thing, it was 'unfair' you know.............
That is not the case , radioactive material is rare in comparison to Oil and natural gas , which Iran has in abundance.
Oil and gas are practically free for Iran , nuclear energy produces waste which is expensive to dispose of.
Oil and naturla gas are expensive to extract and themselves have negative externalities of pollution, they also require a considerable distribution network.
i don't know exactly but i can see no reason why the same cost effectiveness would nto apply to iran when it does to the US, Britain and France for example..........
I see that Putin has agreed to put pressure on them to have the plant checked out by the IAEA, that seems like a better idea, using carrot (of further help) with stick (withdrawal of said help) to get them to agree with an internationally backed agnecy, not the demands of one country who has recently occupied you neighbour and threatened you.
Don't you think that is better?
To get you started in a bit of research (other than The Sun)...
http://www.pu.org/main/facts/energy.html
Another site on the costs of fuels...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/health_and_environment/page.cfm?pageID=88
He kinda flip flopped today and is sending them heavy water or something. But Iran invited the US to get in on bidding opportunities regarding the rest of the building of this plant.
I don't know what to think Toadborg. I don't want us to be the world policemen but I also don't want to let our guard down and have something worst than 9/11 happen. Beyond the death, look at the worldwide loss of jobs.
Calm down man , remember , your pills?
- im no expert, but even though the US has relatively large oil supplies,they still use more oil than they produce thats why usa uses nuclear, its next to canada which produces most of the uranium along with australia
- in britain im quite sure we produce about how much we use in oil and natural gas,however import our coal these days mainly, its cheaper to buy from australia and ship it here etc than dig out of the ground
- also here in the uk, someone mentioned we have profitable nuclear powerplants, HAHA, they are livin off of government 'loans' apparantly so its basically subsidisded here, whether thats the fat cat manager im not sure
- nuclear isnt cheap and actually thouh it produces far more energy, per kilowatt its more expensive than oil than natural gas here in uk im sure
- however iran probably doesnt have the capacity iof infrastructure to produce enouh natural gas to use in power plants cheaply (im guessing here,can someone check this please?)
- personal opinion of mine is that iran wont dispose of the waste how we know it, as in develop a gradual nuclear programme, but well personally i rekcon no country should have nuclear weapons so since we have them i dont see why they shouldnt have them thugh i dread the thouht of a nuclear attack, but theres more chance of nuclear weapons coming from defected former soviet union commanders or russian equipment failing! plenty of former soviet breifcase sized dirty bombs not on records, if you get me *stolen*
criticise ahead, and i dont have statistic but statistics can prove anything you want them to, but i swear i saw some figures that show these points
Before you start making wild claims about Iran being a terrorist state and in league with Al Qaida (deja vu anyone? :rolleyes: ) I want you to stop taking the US government's word as fact for one minute and look at it from an entirely objective point of view. Imagine you are an alien who just found planet Earth and came down to observe it or something.
Now, a number of countries have WMDs, both declared and undeclared. If you support pre-emptive military action to stop regimes owning WMDs because one day they might use them, how do you decide which countries are a liability?
Well the best way is to look at recent history and track record of those countries:
- The US government is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in a conflict
- The US government was behind the biggest chemical warfare operation in human history (Vietnam)
- The US government has bombed 21 countries since the end of WWII.
- With the possible exception of Afghanistan in 2001 and perhaps a couple of others not a single one of those countries were bombed in self-defence or with any legitimate reason
- The US government has a long and proven track record of financing and collaborating with terrorists and brutal dictators everywhere
- The US government has provided WMDs to third parties
- Conclusion: the US government is the most dangerous, aggressive regime since Nazi Germany, and the biggest danger to world peace there is.
Now you give me a single reason why should invade other countries for trying to acquire themselves with WMDs. Because there are two fundamental problems with this:
1. Thanks to G. W. Bush and his imperialistic policies, those countries feel the need to own WMDs as the only form of effective protection against US aggression
2. If we must attack any country in order to remove the threat from its WMDs, clearly that country has to be the USA, for it is the most likely one to use them against others.
I look foward to your reply.
Self defense. Every militant Muslim anywhere is an enemy of the US and cannot be ignored or we're inviting another 9/11.
Hopefully, the majority in Iran can overthrow the 100 or so Muslim clerics keeping the country hostage. Otherwise, I'm for special ops troops going into Iran and assinating all 100 before they inspire jihad against the US or further arm and fund Hezbollah.
Expect it? Yes we do.
Although, the threat is far less now since we're aggressively pursuing our vision for peace in the Middle East and our enemies.
Although I must say that if Bush continues his imperialistic policy of aggression much longer a pre-emptive attack against the US might just become an option for some. One thing is clear: the US would be far less at risk today had the Florida ballot not been rigged and another person had been elected to the Presidency. And for as long as the warmongering Bush administration remains in power the risk will remain higher.
One thing Aladdin you must admit. Saudi Arabia really came down on the clerics who were calling for jihad against the US. And that will help since they are admired.
That is a contradiction surely.
Pj, if the current moves towards a Palestinian state fail I am pretty sure it will not be because of Hizbollah.........
This process will fail and it will not be, despite what the US media will undoubtedly report, because of the Palestinians. Whilst they are being walled into a virtual nazi concentration camp and bombarded, bulldozed, and shot at almost daily (though not reported daily of course), they would be fools to give up their only means of self defence.
Just look at what the Nazi's did to the Warsaw ghetto when the Jews tried to fight back against their murderous oppressors, then perhaps youll see where leaders like Sharon draw the inspiration for their policies from. Different era and aggressor, same immoral principle.
There you are:
'Activity' yesterday
And during May.
If only any of these incidents were given 10% of the column inches devoted to suicide bombers in the Western press...