So Iran has begun to enrich uranium…and they say this is for peacful uses only? Why would a country that is awash in oil need to have nuclear power plants? Are they worried about an imminent shortage of oil?
On a practical note…how does Iran rank as an industrial power these days…are they capable of manufacturing reliable, long-range balliatic missiles?
Frankly I find the whole thing bizarre…if Iran wanted to arm itself with nuclear weapons (and threaten its neighbors), why would they announce all of this effort? Why not develop the bombs in secret, then hold a trst blast and announce their capabilities afterwards? 
I had always been led to believe that the US too has extensive oil fields, yet there is no suggestion that the US should use oil exclusively and ignore other power sources.
What’s good for the goose…
They could easily say that they’re just being prudent, ensuring further energy sources for the future.
Whether you believe them is irrelevant. Peaceful development of energy sources is allowed by the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) they are signatories to. This bans weapons testing, and so any weapons would have to be developed in secret. With all kinds of British and Israeli intelligence agents crawling around, this might be tricky.
As to whether or not they have the capablilty to manufacture ballistic missiles: They don’t have to. They only need the gelt to buy them. And they, as you say, are sitting on a goodly amount of oil.
Because they can sell it.
While I don’t believe the Iranians are just trying to develop nuclear power plants, just because they’ve got a lot of oil doesn’t mean that it isn’t wise for them to do it. Every drop of oil they use for power production means one less drop of oil they can sell on the world market.
The amount of oil Iran can sell internationally is strictly defined by OPEC agreements. Building a nuclear power plant or two won’t have any impact on Iran’s oil exports.
It has been argued that Iran needs these plants to improve air quality (Tehran has some of the worst air pollution on earth) but it’s hard to see how this could help much because most of Tehran’s pollution is created by vehicles and is trapped there by mountains. Additionally, Iran’s nuclear program (even a peaceful one) will create radioactive waste that will pose a serious disposal problem.
It’s hard to imagine why a nation awash in energy and short of so terribly many other things would spend vast amounts of it’s scarce hard currency on an energy program unless it was of a military nature.
It’s also worth noting that Iran’s nuclear facilities including the main one at Bushehr are sitting on geologically active areas. I do not know if these facilities are being built to withstand massive earthquakes. Some of Iran’s nuclear facilities are located deep underground to protect them from bombing, but this would seem to make them more vulnerable to seismic events, though I doubt nuclear reactors themselves would be would be in such locations.
The U.S. is forced to import the majority of it’s oil. This has been the case since 1994. The easily exploitable oil reserves in the U.S. have been just about tapped. Today, drilling is going on in ever deeper parts of the Gulf of Mexico and has been proposed in environmentally sensitive places such as ANWAR. Even untapped reserves such as ANWAR are not very large compared to the demand for oil.
This is a very interesting and informal article about this issue
Le Monde diplomatique (English edition)
Is the US still developing neuclear weapons?
Worse, SUV’s, as if we really need them!
Is it now? I was under the impression that it was just the rate they can sell oil that was regulated. You know only so many barrels per year or some such.
Well, if Iran had been smart enough only to negotiate the rate at which they can sell oil then this statement would be wrong because any oil that they don’t burn for fuel could be sold. So, in the long run they’d actually have a greater sum total of oil to sell at the set rate of xbarrels/yr. But instead they stupidly agreed to limit teh amount of oil they can sell.
It’s worth noting that Iran doesn’t plan to build “a nuclear power plant or two.” Instead, Iran plans to build seven reactors.
Unless you are mistaken about the amount of oil that Iran can sell being limited. If, perchance, Iran were instead, only limited to selling so much oil per a year then it would make eminent sense for Iran to sell their oil rather than burning it themselves. (provided of course that the price fetched for oil was greater than the cost of nuclear energy.
Perhaps you are mistaken about Iran being limited in how much oil they can sell.
Since Iran was smart enough to play the neocons re Iraq, I’m guessing that they wouldn’t be so stupid to agree to a limit on the total amount of oil they could sell (opposed to agreeing on merely the rate at which they can sell it).
**If you have a moment, would you please provide a citation for this limit on the “amount of oil Iran can sell internationally?” **
I’m sorry, but I fail to see the significant difference between amount and rate. Everyone realizes what he meant, except, apparently, for the most extremly anal/snarkey/deliberately obtuse posters around.
Except that he was wrong. While oil savings due to use of nuclear power wouldn’t result in higher oil income at the moment, it would certainly increase the longevity of Iran’s oilfields. I realize such long-term thinking is utterly alien to the American mindset, with its politicians being unable to see past the next election and its businesspeople being unable to see past next quarter’s earnings, but not everyone is so obsessed with the short term.
That said, I think the mullahs are clearly after the Bomb. And, frankly, given the state of things, I can’t say I blame them, though I’d much rather they didn’t succeed.
Good questions. Really good question. But it belongs in GQ.
Look, what does the amount of oil Iran can sell abroad have to do with its need for nuclear power? As noted in posts above, the Iranians might feel they need nuclear power because
-
There’s a lot of air pollution in Iran. Nuclear energy won’t do anything to reduce emissions from motor vehicles (unless a “hydrogen economy” really does happen, in which case they could use the nuke plants to make hydrogen); but it will reduce emissions from fossil-fuel-driven power plants.
-
Iran has lots of oil, but the oil might (in fact, will) run out some day.
and another one . . .
- Up-to-date industrialized countries have nuclear energy. Iran just wants to be modern. Which includes having the technology and facilities to enrich their own uranium, so they won’t have to rely on anybody else being willing to sell them the fuel.
Second to a homegrown space program, building a uranium enrichment plant is a great way to build up a cadre of skilled scientists and engineers. In coming years, that’ll pay dividends throughout the country.
The US (and indeed any country who already had nukes when hey signed up - the Nuclear Weapon States) is allowed to develop weapons by the NPT, except for the kinds of weapons it specifically prohibits (such as “tactical nukes” small enough for battleground use or “EMT pulse nukes” for knocking out all enemy electronics without killing many people).
Of course, if the US can rip up a treaty unilaterally because it thinks it is “outdated” (NMD, anyone?) then it might take some responsibility if other nations follow its example.
SM, I take it you’re referring to National Missile Defense by NMD? Just to clarify for those who may not be familiar with the abbreviation.
Yes, roger. The US now seeks the militarisation of space and has unilaterally reneged on treaties limiting it. (Note also that the US did not even ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and so has even less scope for objection to Iran’s program).
Buying missiles will only get you so far, though. Most “purchased” missiles on the market today are derivatives of the SCUD family of 2d-generation Soviet SRBMs. For reference, the German V-2 is considered 1st-generation, and a modern ICBM from America or Russia is considered 4th- or 5th-generation. Each generation makes a fundamental leap in range-times-payload and/or accuracy.
Pavel Podvig’s book on Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces (available on Amazon for just under $100) along with the FAS article on Iran’s Shahab-3 program make for some interesting reading.
The “gelt to buy them” is largely irrelevant when trying to buy from the xenophobic Russians or Chinese, both of whom thinly veil their contempt for Arabs and Persians. They will sell whatever they regard as junk to make a profit, but I can’t conceive of a price point at which you’ll see the Chinese/Russians put a missile in Tehran that could conceivably come back to hit Beijing/Moscow. They’re greedy but they’re not stupid.
'Tis a pity. My bad. I just assumed everyone realized what I meant.
Hope this helps:
Amount refers to quantity.
Rate refers to quantity per unit of time.
If he meant what he said, then I’ve asked for a citation because it seems so unlikely. but, if true, then his point would stand as written.
If he meant rate instead of amount, then his conclusion is faulty for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.