Iran to go Nuclear

[Brighton Breezy]

Russia are selling Iran nuclear fuel for a new power station under an agreement that means all 'used up' fuel has to be returned to Russia.

Like that is going to happen without the occasional bit of plutoneum etc going missing and being used for weapons.

Bush said something along the lines of 'We have no plans to attack Iran, but everything is being left on the table.'

Iran it is then next for America: World Police.

 

[itszamora]

Probably just the excuse Bush is looking for - its no real secret he's after them especially since the "axis of evil" speech.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Iran it is then next for America: World Police

As a surprise, this is hardly rocket science...

 

[alan partridge]

AH! :southafricanaccent: Full beam.

 

[NMH]

Well it is only expected that countries are going to arm themselves to the teeth after that prick GW has been threatening and flinging insults like 'Axis of Evil' around.

One country that is suspected of having wmd's and the US attack them, vs several that announce quite loudly that they have them and intend to build more?

As the yanks say over here; "go figure"

 

[NMH]

Probably just the excuse Bush is looking for - its no real secret he's after them especially since the "axis of evil" speech.

Ah, there's a spotters badge due!

It's the other way around mate, these countries are RESPONDING to Bush - can't you see that?

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

Iran has been working on developing nuclear weapons for over 20 years. It has very little to do with Bush, he just provides a convenient figure to blame for the apologists that refuse to recognise that some of the regimes in the Middle East are permenently flouting international treaties.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Responding to Bush?

Left wing propoganda if ever I heard it. This plant has been being built for about 20 years so the threat was there LONG before Bush.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Responding to Bush?

Left wing propoganda if ever I heard it. This plant has been being built for about 20 years so the threat was there LONG before Bush.

Believe it or not, Richie, 20 years ago it was possible to think of nuclear power as a force for good in the world, not a "threat". It generates electricity, without consuming fossil fuels.

I'm in no doubt that the Iranians were working on developing the technology a long, long time ago.

You (and others) now describle this as a "threat". I can understand why, but would simply suggest that any element of feeling threatened arises from the destabilised state of the region's politics - which CAN reasonably be attributed to US foreign policy.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Please do not patronise me Lord B.

I know the merits of Nuclear power as an energy resourse but for people to seek to blame Bush for other countries suspect nuclear development is a bit weak in my opinion.

I can see your point about countries feeling threatened and seeking these weapons in order to provide a deterrant to attack but also some countries may feel that seeking to develop long range missile capability is more likely to bring attention to yourselves as a possible enemy and bring about likely military action BEFORE they can develop the deterrant.

Hmm..would that have been 20 ago when the cold war was still very much an issue and the idea of nuclear deterrant's were driving many nations to develop nuclear missiles Lord B?

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

LB - interesting view, you suggest that Iran began its nuclear programme as an environmental move?

Iran has some fairly significant oil reserves and this is its main export - they dont need nuclear energy and any move away from fossil fuels would put their ecomony into meltdown. Despite their claims the nuclear programme has always been viewed as a threat. Iraq certainly sees it as a threat as does Israel, as does Pakistan and the list could continue.

 

[swindonseagull]

George Bush

 

[Tom Bombadil]

If we are going to attack rogue states, who have developed illegal nuclear weapons and are destabalising the region why aren't we threatening Israel, Pakistan or India?

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

Depends on your definition of things. India and Pakistan were never part of the non Proliferation Treaty and therefore technically have never broken any treaties/international law. It is also easy to argue that nuclear weapons between the two have stabilised the region.

Israel is obviously a little bit different although it is difficult to find people who believe Israel would still be in existence if it didnt have a nuclear arsenal.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Israel is obviously a little bit different although it is difficult to find people who believe Israel would still be in existence if it didnt have a nuclear arsenal.

Difficult to find them where exactly?


Israel exists because it's army has superior weaponry, better trained and motivated armed forces and better leadership than it's Arab neighbours. It has spent Americas money well.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I think you have just proven Eastleigh's point there.
If Israel did not have the arsenal that it does it would have been blown to f*** by now. That sort of justifies it in my opinion.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I think you have just proven Eastleigh's point there.
If Israel did not have the arsenal that it does it would have been blown to f*** by now. That sort of justifies it in my opinion.

Er no. The point is Israel didn't need to develop a nuclear arsenal, it's conventional armed forces were more than a match for it's enemies.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Please do not patronise me Lord B.

How clever of you to notice.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

Er no. The point is Israel didn't need to develop a nuclear arsenal, it's conventional armed forces were more than a match for it's enemies.

That is the point 'they were more than a match', Israel's enemies have invested in conventional forces to such an extent now that such a war would almost certainly lead to the defeat of Israel. It is the existence of the nuclear weapons that deters such a conflict.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

That is the point 'they were more than a match', Israel's enemies have invested in conventional forces to such an extent now that such a war would almost certainly lead to the defeat of Israel. It is the existence of the nuclear weapons that deters such a conflict.

Really which of Israels enemies, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the Syrians? Come on none of these states has the force or the inclination to attack Israel, the world has moved on since 1973.