If they want to make nuclear fuel (for their new power plants), why do they need so many centrifuges? If the object is to enrich to make medical isotopes, the same question applies-why the need for so many?
One report said that Iran intends on exporting nuclear fuel-does this make any sense? (Given the present glut of uranium)?
Obviously they want to be able to build a bomb on short notice. I have read that the first few percent of enrichment is the hardest; going from partially enriched uranium to fully enriched is easier.
From news reports I have heard, I would break off negotiations immediately. They have more to lose by no agreement than we do. They have drawn unacceptable lines in the sand. No inspection of military sites. What is this? No talking to nuclear scientists. Surely they can’t expect us to take them seriously. Walk away and tell them that they can call us if they change their minds. The ball is in their court.
They’re lying. Hard to believe I know, but all they want and are going to do and are right now doing with it is making nuclear weapons. They have ginormous oil reserves and absolutely no need whatsoever for nuclear power. Or anything else nuclear other than bombs…
Probably the same reasons any other country does. Nuclear power plants and atomic bombs.
For peaceful purposes, don’t ya think ?
How do you say, “Nukes for Peace” in Farsi?
I though Iran would buy fuel rods from Russia. This was part of the deal.
It seems obviously reasonable that a country would want to sell its petro while using a different source for electricity.
It seems that if Iran could get their electricity from somewhere other than petro then they would be free to sell more of their petro.
What’s the thing which makes this obvious/naive observation inaccurate?
What is the mystery behind the idea that Iran would want to sell its petro rather than expend it?
That Iran probably has own-needs petro for about 2,500 years. They can sell 99% of it and still have gas for pennies a gallon.
Because they’re a sovereign country and should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. If they end up doing something bad with them, then we can decide what to do in response. If I was a country in the ME and knew that Israel had nukes on one side of me and Pakistan and India had them on the other side… Maybe I’d want to keep things even.
Eye Sis
Regardless of gas @ pennies/gal
Petro that is sold is still more cash than petro that is expended.
Getting the petro cheaply just means that there’s that much more incentive to sell it.
Well said. But, I would not have signed a treaty expressly agreeing not to make a nuclear weapons programme….like Iran did and those three countries did not.
At this point, it’s laughably obvious that these “negotiations” aren’t doing much more than keeping John Kerry busy. There have been at least 2 or 3 times now where it was starting to look like a deal was close, only for Iran’s supreme leaders to throw cold water on the whole process.
Any high school student can figure out that Iran is dragging things out until after they’ve got their fissionable material produced.
Because they learned the lesson the USA taught them. Countries like North Korea with nuclear weapons get scolded, countries like Iraq without nuclear weapons get invaded. Which country would you want to be?
We tolerate NoKo because China has a meaningful number of nukes, not because Kimmy has a couple of radioactive firecrackers.
Iran said that they want to share the wealth of their nuclear technology with the other Persian Gulf States that want to expand.
But I think they really want to make money on what they have learned from Russia helping them get to this point in time.
They already have received $425 billion dollars in gold returned to them last week that they had purchased before the sanctions went into place.
I bet they are happy with that decision …
If they want peace without nuclear weapons fine with me, but …
If they lie we all die :eek:
Far from it. They could do immense harm, but not destroy…or even really seriously harm…the U.S., Europe, China, India, Brazil, Japan…etc.
They could start a ball rolling that would kill a hundred million… But not us all.
How do you figure 100 million? If they got 10 100 kiloton nukes into key spots in America or Europe, that probably wouldn’t kill more than a million folks per blast, would it? They wouldn’t be able to airburst their nukes - the ICBM tech is too complex, the missiles can be shot down, I think they’d have better luck smuggling them in shipping containers.
And the USA or Europe would probably annihilate everyone in Iran. That’s sort of been the agreed upon penalty for using a nuke - extinction of your entire civilization and all of your people. To me, that sounds like a proportionate response. Every last man, woman, and child in Iran. Sure, most of them had nothing to do with it - but they could have revolted and changed to a less ignorant government.
When confronted with the question of being nuked themselves if they provoked an attack the head leader of Iran said, “We are going to heaven anyway”