Except, Jurph, that North Korea and Pakistan managed to create a nice symbiotic relationship, and I can easily see the same thing happening with Iran. Too, as has been pointed out, creating a nuclear program is a dandy way to get a lot of scientists on your team. Even buying junk from the Russians or Chinese, Iranian scientists will be able to figure out how to manufacture something better using the junk as a prototype.
“Iran plans to build a nuclear power plant or two” is in no way at odds with “Iran plans to built 7 nuclear reactors”. The Three Mile Island power plant had three reactors. The Chernobyl plant had four. The USS Enterprise (CVN 65) has eight reactors- though it’s not a power plant.
Incidentally, Iran has several nuclear power plants. They also have uranium deposits and are planning to mine them. Should they be forced to buy enriched fuel from Russia, or pay someone else to reprocess their spent fuel or mined ore, simply because the US claims it makes them nervous for them to be self-sufficient?
A tiny corner of ignorance abolished. Very interesting. Thank you.
Re that, is this, which was news to little ol me…
U.S. Push for More Scrutiny of Iran Nuclear Program Fails
Last year, Britain, France and Germany persuaded Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment efforts in order to build confidence among the international community while it clarifies questions about its nuclear program. In return, the three European countries promised to transfer nuclear energy technology to Iran and to resist American efforts to send the country’s case before the Security Council. Iran plans to build six more 1,000-megawatt reactors.
Iran’s apparently been voluntarily complying with limits outside of what’s required of them by treaty as a gesture of goodwill.
Are you trying to say here that Iran’s nuclear program is a good or a bad thing? Or that it’s a good thing for Iran and a bad thing for everybody else? Or that it’s a good thing for Iran and no special threat to anybody else?
From the article liked by SimonX
If this is true, then apparently it did, at least in the 60’s, seem to make economic sense to build reactors in an oil rich country. Also, one can see, given the near constant level of instability in that part of the world that, if they were going to rely on nuclear power, they’d want to produce their own fuel instead of relying on others. Finally, the main piece of evidence that they were building the bomb, the traces of highly enriched uranium, appears to have been explained to the IAEA’s satisfaction. In short, I’m much less convinced that Iran is building the bomb then I was before reading the article.
On the other hand, earlier this month, the IAEA said that “unresolved issues surrounding Iran’s atomic programme are being clarified or resolved outright”. It’s hard to understand why Iran didn’t just sit tight for a few months and see if they could convince the UN to give them the green light instead of risking economic sanctions by begining enrichment right away.
Apparently, they were also engaged in construction of a heavy water reactor in secret.
Oh, it’s a bad thing if they’re attempting to make nuclear weapons. Which means that it’s very probably a bad thing all the way across the board.
A thousand apologies. I thought that was clear.
As far as I can tell, this is also duel use and not a violation of the NPA. As for keeping it secret, well, given the uproar when all this was finally declared and Israel penchant for blowing up other peoples reactors, I think thats understandable. Also, while the NPA says they have to declare Uranium enrichment activities at a certan point, there isn’t any evidence that they had reached the stage where it was necessary to do so.
I found this article from an Iraninan news website that lays out their case for why Nuclear power makes economic sense for Iran.
It’s evidence, not proof. Whether or not it’s ‘main’ is of course a matter of opinion. How strong o fevidence it is is also a matter of opinion. But it seems to be a central part of the US’s case for encourage mistrust of Iran’s intentions.
Interesting article.
I noted this in particularL
“At the same time, since early 1990s, Iran’s consumption of oil has been increasing at an alarming rate of 8% per year, and her total energy consumption has increased from 1.6 quadrillion Btu (quads) in 1980 to more than 5.5 quads at present - an increase of more than 280%. If this trend continues, Iran will become a net oil importer by 2010…”
I don’t think that this is only propaganda. Irans population have increased enormous the last two decades.
They might have a booming population and use oil revenue more, but this still doesn’t mean they should be allowed to build a nuclear reactor. I object highly to an Islamic fundamentalist government being able to reach a stage where it can challenge Israels dominance as regional superpower.
I hope to dear God the Israelis don’t dissapoint and blow the thing up.
Do you think they can do that and not start a war?
It’s not clear from the phrasing. Would you be disappointed if Israel did ‘blow the thing up’ or would you be disappointed if the Israelis did not ‘blow the thing up’?
Did not.
There probably would be an escalation of hostilities towards Iraq under American occupation (seen by some as Zionist controlled) and a shitload of more money for Hamas and Hezbollah.
This would happen anyway, just under the protection of their nuclear threat, and by then the situation could or would get even worse, better off with an increase in hostilities for the short term, than one in the long term.
It’s not yet proven that the Iranians are funding or supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Ryan. Rumsfeld says so, but I ain’t buying it until I see some proof, which he has not provided.
Why wouldn’t they?
Wouldn’t it be common sense to try and destablise the very government that was installed by a power which it hates?
Well, it worked with Iraq. As to whether or not it’ll work again, I dunno. I certainly hope not.
Waste
Well, the OP asks if Iran needs nuclear power, and strictly speaking Id say yes. So does the US, certainly more of it than we have if we are to meet our energy needs. California definately needs more nuclear power.
Or did the OP mean nuclear weapons as opposed to nuclear power?
Plausible attribution of motive does not, by itself, constitute proof of guilt.
And one might argue that it is also in the Iranians’ interest to have a stable regime in Iraq, so long as the regime in power is not hostile to Iran, as Hussein was. No country likes constant unrest in a neighbor; it’s bad for commerce, you might get refugees, and there’s always a chance your neighbor’s civil war might spill over into your own territory.