Iran vows to expand nuclear program

[Michael]

Iran vows to expand its nuclear program

10 uranium-enrichment sites announced after international rebuke

Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 30, 2009

TEHRAN -- Iran's government will build 10 new sites to enrich uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday, a dramatic expansion of the country's nuclear program and one that is bound to fuel fears that it is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon.

Ahmadinejad told the official Islamic Republic News Agency that construction of at least five nuclear facilities is to begin within two months.

The surprise announcement came two days after a censure of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the Islamic republic's refusal to stop enriching uranium, a key demand of Western powers. The 35-member board of the agency also criticized Iran's construction of a second enrichment plant in Qom, southwest of Tehran.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112900992.html)

Oh boy this doesn't sound good. I'm not particularly opposed to Iran developing nukes, but I am disturbed by the "in your face" type attitude they are displaying.

I think thirty years of short-sighted US policy here is paying very ugly dividends. :shrug:

[Zarquon]

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112900992.html)

Oh boy this doesn't sound good. I'm not particularly opposed to Iran developing nukes, but I am disturbed by the "in your face" type attitude they are displaying.

I think thirty years of short-sighted US policy here is paying very ugly dividends. :shrug:
Try 56 to include the coup of 1953 which toppled a social-democratic govt and installed the aristocratic shah, and sowed the seeds of the eventual revolution.

[Americano]

Try 56 to include the coup of 1953 which toppled a social-democratic govt and installed the aristocratic shah, and sowed the seeds of the eventual revolution.

The US/UK implemented coup.

[Donkey]

Listening to NPR's discussion of feasibility of the progam's ambitions, it's much like Iran threatening to build a giant laaaaaaser.

[Michael]

Listening to NPR's discussion of feasibility of the progam's ambitions, it's much like Iran threatening to build a giant laaaaaaser.

That's essentially irrelevant. This is a game of words that the USA likes to play. Iran has been encouraged to play this game in precisely this way.

Its not about actual nuclear plants, it is about attitude. Iran has figured out that their nuclear program is irrelevant to their relations with the western powers. They are now just tweaking our noses.

Iran must bow before America or America will continue to seek war. Iran could shelf their entire nuke program tomorrow and relations between US and Iran wouldn't change one whit. Iran has figured this out. When will the USA admitt that?

[The Drunk Guy]

When will the USA admit that?
When American corporations control their government, too.

[Americano]

That's essentially irrelevant. This is a game of words that the USA likes to play. Iran has been encouraged to play this game in precisely this way.

Its not about actual nuclear plants, it is about attitude. Iran has figured out that their nuclear program is irrelevant to their relations with the western powers. They are now just tweaking our noses.

Iran must bow before America or America will continue to seek war. Iran could shelf their entire nuke program tomorrow and relations between US and Iran wouldn't change one whit. Iran has figured this out. When will the USA admitt that?

Accurate assessment. With Israel in the mix Iran has no other direction. If I was an Iranian I would despise America, not just for the current situation, and hate her gunslinger Israel. Global economics and US domestic requirements are going to become more of an issue in that circumstance over the coming decade, making Israel even more paranoid.

[Greendruid]

Thought I'd necropost this thread on this development from the IAEA on the issue of investigations into Iran's nuclear programme:

UN Atomic Agency 'deeply concerned' over Iran (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/11/201111181782722749.html)

This looks like it's going to get ugly. I can't imagine a worse scenario for Iran to deal with and the hypocrisy of the Western powers that are already nuclear is always shocking to me. I just don't get how those who have nuclear weapons arsenals can sit there and shake their fingers at another country who is pursuing this goal and say "Now, now. You really shouldn't try to develop weapons like we have. They're really bad. That's why we don't like them." I can just see a political cartoonist drawing Obama sitting on a mountain of nuclear warheads shouting this down to Ahmadinejad. I just don't get why they take this stance of hypocrisy with each other. Israel is just going to go ballistic if Iran announces the successful purification of weapons-grade plutonium.

[Michael]

Thought I'd necropost this thread on this development from the IAEA on the issue of investigations into Iran's nuclear programme:

UN Atomic Agency 'deeply concerned' over Iran (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/11/201111181782722749.html)

This looks like it's going to get ugly. I can't imagine a worse scenario for Iran to deal with and the hypocrisy of the Western powers that are already nuclear is always shocking to me. I just don't get how those who have nuclear weapons arsenals can sit there and shake their fingers at another country who is pursuing this goal and say "Now, now. You really shouldn't try to develop weapons like we have. They're really bad. That's why we don't like them." I can just see a political cartoonist drawing Obama sitting on a mountain of nuclear warheads shouting this down to Ahmadinejad. I just don't get why they take this stance of hypocrisy with each other. Israel is just going to go ballistic if Iran announces the successful purification of weapons-grade plutonium.

At this point is all pretty much word-for-word the same game as was played out ten years ago with Iraq. I think they just swapped the "q" for an "n" and re-issued the same report.

Btw, I'm not suggesting that Iran doesn't have a nuclear program, I'm merely suggesting that fact is mostly irrelevant to Israeli and American warhawks who just want a war with Iran regardless. Indeed, exactly the same game as with Iraq.

[The Drunk Guy]

I liked the part where they offered to assist Turkey with their program. :rofl: Foreign policy by angsty teenagers.

[Michael]

From the report:

Glyn Davies, the US envoy to the IAEA, told the board on Friday that the "watershed report ... leaves little doubt that Iran, at the very least, wants to position itself for a nuclear weapons capacity".

In case anyone would like some context here, Canada, Japan and Germany also have formally, officially and openly positioned themselves for a nuclear weapons capacity.

All three of these countries could develop nuclear weapons on very short notice (official policy to maintain that state of readiness).

In other words, the warmongers are playing weasel-word games to try to convince people to let them have their war.

As far as I'm concerned, if there was a good reason to attack Iran, one doesn't need to play weasel-word games as they did with Iraq. Good policy doesn't need lies to sell it. If they use lies to sell it, that's indicative that this is not good policy.

[Greendruid]

At this point is all pretty much word-for-word the same game as was played out ten years ago with Iraq. I think they just swapped the "q" for an "n" and re-issued the same report.

Btw, I'm not suggesting that Iran doesn't have a nuclear program, I'm merely suggesting that fact is mostly irrelevant to Israeli and American warhawks who just want a war with Iran regardless. Indeed, exactly the same game as with Iraq.

I was actually going to make that observation but thought I might be painting it all with too broad a brush and was being too harsh/paranoid. I'm actually kind of relieved to see someone more astute on world politics than myself think exactly the same thing. I was thinking though that the IAEA has been swapped for Colin Powell this time whereas in 2001 this wasn't the case with that agency. They were pretty silent on the whole thing because the assertion wasn't necessarily a nuclear arsenal. It's like the ante has been upped with a nastier weapons category or something to create even more fear. What will they come up with that's worse than nuclear weapons, WMDs or terrorism for the next victim/target of Western aggression? BTW, this posting will hit the maximum alert level if I also insert the words Afghanistan and Bin Laden for effect. :rofl:

[Donkey]

I was actually going to make that observation but thought I might be painting it all with too broad a brush and was being too harsh/paranoid. I'm actually kind of relieved to see someone more astute on world politics than myself think exactly the same thing. I was thinking though that the IAEA has been swapped for Colin Powell this time whereas in 2001 this wasn't the case with that agency. They were pretty silent on the whole thing because the assertion wasn't necessarily a nuclear arsenal. It's like the ante has been upped with a nastier weapons category or something to create even more fear. What will they come up with that's worse than nuclear weapons, WMDs or terrorism for the next victim/target of Western aggression? BTW, this posting will hit the maximum alert level if I also insert the words Afghanistan and Bin Laden for effect. :rofl:

In all honesty I fear chemical and biological weapons more, as they are more likely to be used.

Heh. Reminds me of a class I took, a teacher polled us on what we thought was the greatest threat in the 21st century.

1. Nuclear Arms
2. Chemical and Biological weapons (probably should get separate categories)
3. Small arms.

I said small arms. My rationale was simple: small arms kill thousands every year, and will for the forseeable future. Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons kill no one, nor are they all that likely to.

I think the "correct" answer was chem/bio though, according to "experts."

[Greendruid]

In all honesty I fear chemical and biological weapons more, as they are more likely to be used.

Heh. Reminds me of a class I took, a teacher polled us on what we thought was the greatest threat in the 21st century.

1. Nuclear Arms
2. Chemical and Biological weapons (probably should get separate categories)
3. Small arms.

I said small arms. My rationale was simple: small arms kill thousands every year, and will for the forseeable future. Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons kill no one, nor are they all that likely to.

I think the "correct" answer was chem/bio though, according to "experts."

The feasibility of biological weapons is actually remarkably low. Delivery systems of mass infection is hard to duplicate from the model of simple infection from fellow species members. I know this because my PhD advisor was working on this as a modeller for the DHS in 2001 and 2002. Spreading a biological weapon is just too difficult for it to be very effective. As a small-scale scare tactic it seems to work well.

Chemical weapons are indeed a proven effective method for wiping out hundreds of people at a time. The problem with it is that it seems to require the gathering together of people in a crowded location in order to be effective. The Japanese subway incident and the rounding up of Kurds in Iraq are two good examples of this off the top of my head. Once people are able to get out of the way, this method loses effectiveness. However, it would be potentially useful as a scare tactic for things like major sporting events and other large gatherings where security was relatively low. Then again some chemicals have a nasty staying power that others seem to lack, like agent orange or DDT. These are truly frightening to me, especially when they are adopted in a basically untested state into the agricultural world.

[Donkey]

The feasibility of biological weapons is actually remarkably low. Delivery systems of mass infection is hard to duplicate from the model of simple infection from fellow species members. I know this because my PhD advisor was working on this as a modeller for the DHS in 2001 and 2002. Spreading a biological weapon is just too difficult for it to be very effective. As a small-scale scare tactic it seems to work well.

Chemical weapons are indeed a proven effective method for wiping out hundreds of people at a time. The problem with it is that it seems to require the gathering together of people in a crowded location in order to be effective. The Japanese subway incident and the rounding up of Kurds in Iraq are two good examples of this off the top of my head. Once people are able to get out of the way, this method loses effectiveness. However, it would be potentially useful as a scare tactic for things like major sporting events and other large gatherings where security was relatively low. Then again some chemicals have a nasty staying power that others seem to lack, like agent orange or DDT. These are truly frightening to me, especially when they are adopted in a basically untested state into the agricultural world.
Then I am happy to maintain my listing of small arms as item 1. in dangers to the world.

[Michael]

The feasibility of biological weapons is actually remarkably low. Delivery systems of mass infection is hard to duplicate from the model of simple infection from fellow species members. I know this because my PhD advisor was working on this as a modeller for the DHS in 2001 and 2002. Spreading a biological weapon is just too difficult for it to be very effective. As a small-scale scare tactic it seems to work well.

Chemical weapons are indeed a proven effective method for wiping out hundreds of people at a time. The problem with it is that it seems to require the gathering together of people in a crowded location in order to be effective. The Japanese subway incident and the rounding up of Kurds in Iraq are two good examples of this off the top of my head. Once people are able to get out of the way, this method loses effectiveness. However, it would be potentially useful as a scare tactic for things like major sporting events and other large gatherings where security was relatively low. Then again some chemicals have a nasty staying power that others seem to lack, like agent orange or DDT. These are truly frightening to me, especially when they are adopted in a basically untested state into the agricultural world.

WW1 usage of chlorine gas is probably the largest example of biological weapon use. Indeed, it wasn't a very effective weapon.

[rocky.dwf]

From the report:



In case anyone would like some context here, Canada, Japan and Germany also have formally, officially and openly positioned themselves for a nuclear weapons capacity.

All three of these countries could develop nuclear weapons on very short notice (official policy to maintain that state of readiness).

In other words, the warmongers are playing weasel-word games to try to convince people to let them have their war.

As far as I'm concerned, if there was a good reason to attack Iran, one doesn't need to play weasel-word games as they did with Iraq. Good policy doesn't need lies to sell it. If they use lies to sell it, that's indicative that this is not good policy.

1. You have missed out Brazil and South Africa. Turkey is nuclear possessing these from the US. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Indonesia, Venezuela, Argentina, S Korea and Italy are some others planning to acquire or make nukes. Taiwan and Ukraine may have that capacity. US has nukes placed in Australia and Singapore.

2. It is foolish to think this is exclusive anymore.

[Michael]

1. You have missed out Brazil and South Africa. Turkey is nuclear possessing these from the US. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Indonesia, Venezuela, Argentina, S Korea and Italy are some others planning to acquire or make nukes. Taiwan and Ukraine may have that capacity. US has nukes placed in Australia and Singapore.
I only noted Canada, Japan and Germany as they are nations that are known to possess nuclear weapons technology. I believe Japan can build operational nukes in under 3 months if they decide to do it.

The others you mention are rumored to have that ability, or may be trying to achieve it.

2. It is foolish to think this is exclusive anymore.

It hasn't been very exclusive for a long time. India and Israel seem to be the leaky seives where others find it easy to steal the technical information. That being said, it is rumored that both Israel and India stole it themselves.