Now this is scary... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 09-12-2004, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Fears Tehran could build five nuclear bombs
By Con Coughlin in London
September 13, 2004

Iran's decision to begin processing 37 tonnes of uranium yellowcake this month will enable it to acquire enough weapons-grade uranium to build up to five nuclear bombs, Western intelligence officials warn.

The Iranians announced their intention to process the material last week in a submission to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, whose 35-member board of governors is due to meet today to discuss whether the Iranians are being truthful about their nuclear program.

Although the Iranians insist that they will process uranium solely to provide fuel for the country's new nuclear power plants, Western scientists are becoming increasingly concerned about glaring discrepancies in Tehran's official submission on its nuclear program to the international nuclear watchdog.

The agency has asked to visit one of Iran's main military sites, Parchin, near Tehran, but the Iranians have not agreed to the visit, diplomats said.

Parchin, 30 kilometres south-west of Tehran, is a site for a variety of defence projects, including chemical explosives, but the IAEA is wondering if Tehran is possibly doing nuclear weapons work there.

Europe's main powers have agreed to set a November deadline for Iran to meet demands meant to banish concerns that it is secretly trying to make nuclear weapons, a confidential document made available to the Associated Press said.

A draft resolution, prepared for today's IAEA meeting, contains a so-called "trigger mechanism", warning of possible "further steps" - which diplomats defined as shorthand for referral of Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council.

While the draft is likely to undergo changes, it puts European countries the closest they have formally been to the US position on what to do about Iran.

Suspicions about the true extent of Iran's nuclear program have intensified since it was revealed last year that traces of enriched uranium had been found at a secret processing plant at Natanz in central Iran.

The Iranians said a consignment of research equipment delivered from Pakistan had been contaminated before it was brought into the country.

Since then IAEA inspectors, with the full support of European and American leaders, have been pressing Tehran to provide a comprehensive account of its nuclear activities.

In an attempt to counter the mounting hostility of the Bush Administration, which branded Tehran part of an "axis of evil", the Iranians last October reached an agreement with Britain, France and Germany to suspend all uranium enrichment activity.

Following gains made by conservatives in the Iranian parliamentary elections this year, in June Tehran reneged on the agreement, saying it was fully entitled to conduct uranium enrichment under the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so long as it was undertaken for peaceful purposes.

Iran's insistence, however, that its nuclear program is aimed solely at developing its power industry is now being called into question by Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts. They argue that recent discoveries by IAEA inspectors indicate that Iran is maintaining a clandestine nuclear weapons program. [emphasis added by poster]

The first serious discrepancy in Iran's official stand was uncovered this year when agency inspectors - many of whom helped to uncover Saddam Hussein's secret nuclear weapons program in the early 1990s - discovered that Tehran had failed to declare that it had imported the design for an advanced centrifuge [emphasis added by poster], which could be used to produce weapons-grade uranium.

Inspectors were also alarmed to find an ultra-sensitive radiation detection device at the site of Iran's Physics Research Centre in Tehran, where the Government said it had been researching the impact of a nuclear attack on Iran. When inspectors made a pre-arranged visit to the centre, they found that the Iranians had razed the complex and removed topsoil from the surrounding area. [emphasis added by poster]

The Telegraph, London; Associated Press

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...927439313.html

Worrying, eh?

Oh, and I wish they wouldn't use the term "triggering mechanism" when referring to the measures the IAEA would take.

Mr Mephisto

Lebell · 09-12-2004, 05:25 PM

Bad news, but no surprise.

Pray that the Israelis launch another pre-emptive strike that the world can publically denounce and secretly be thankful for.

Mephisto2 · 09-12-2004, 05:28 PM

Lebell, you're a cynical, cynical person!

Mr Mephisto

QuasiMojo · 09-12-2004, 05:45 PM

Like the North Koreans they seem to be using the guise of the "we're only in it for the energy" excuse. Unlike the Koreans, the Iranian government is a theocracy situated riiiiight beside our do or die project in Iraq.

Why don't we send some of our nuclear power experts over there to offer assistance in developing a bona fide energy infra-structure. Help em...get off the ground, if you will.

Mephisto2 · 09-12-2004, 05:50 PM

Does America even have formal diplomatic relations with Iran at present?

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Define formal?

Mephisto2 · 09-12-2004, 06:21 PM

Have you appointed an embassador.

That's formal.

Mr Mephisto

QuasiMojo · 09-12-2004, 06:22 PM

FORMAL
adj.

1.
1. Relating to or involving outward form or structure.
2. Being or relating to essential form or constitution: a formal principle.
2.
1. Following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations: had little formal education; went to a formal party.
2. Executed, carried out, or done in proper or regular form: a formal reprimand; a formal document.
3.
1. Characterized by strict or meticulous observation of forms; methodical: very formal in their business transactions.
2. Stiffly ceremonious: a formal manner; a formal greeting; a formal bow to the monarch.
4. Having the outward appearance but lacking in substance: a formal requirement that is usually ignored.

n.

Something, such as a gown or social affair, that is formal in nature.

[Middle English, from Latin frmlis, from frma, shape.]

I tend to think that EVERYTHING that is done concerning this country is done formally.

Paq · 09-12-2004, 06:37 PM

seriously....is anyone really hoping, secretly or openly, that israel will openly strike iran.....

Mephisto2 · 09-12-2004, 06:38 PM

Good grief. Have we descended into arguing over definitions of words!?!!

Formal diplomatic relations implies the appointment of an embassador and/or the creation of an embassy or consulate.

Without those, it would be difficult for America to send technical assistance to Iran to develop a peaceful nuclear industry.

Why the nitpicking over words? It's got nothing to do with the thread.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2004, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

seriously....is anyone really hoping, secretly or openly, that israel will openly strike iran.....

I'll trust the Mossad before I trust the Ayatollah and the Guardian council.

powerclown · 09-12-2004, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

seriously....is anyone really hoping, secretly or openly, that israel will openly strike iran.....

Its a foregone conclusion...the Israelis do not mess around when it comes to the security of their country, and rarely concern themselves with world opinion critical of them. The day those reactors are capable of producing nuclear weapons will be the day Israel begins preparations to bomb them into oblivion. I'm sure all the necessary logistics to do so are in place. Between the lines, Iran's unofficial purpose for developing nuclear weapons is to "end the Israeli problem".

This leads to another theory: among many other things, maybe ending Hussein's regime provided Israel with unobstructed access to Iran and their reactors...

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2004, 07:44 PM

Actually one thing to consider in retrospect is that Israel is not so cold that they would bomb these operating reactors. That's the thing with Osiriak, they hit it before it was operational because they didn't want to strike a nuclear core and risk civilian life. These reactors are juiced up and running, wouldn't be wise to hit them.

hascal21 · 09-12-2004, 07:45 PM

According the US State Dept., there is no embassy in Iran. Remember they are part of the axis of evil, so I guess we should not have a embassy there. Because why would we want intelligence on the ground there. Why does Iran need a nuclear power plants since they are sitting on the fuel they need to generate electricity. Tehran --> here comes the US Armed Forces.....

Rdr4evr · 09-12-2004, 08:06 PM

"axis of evil" I haven't heard such bullshit in my life.

QuasiMojo · 09-12-2004, 08:11 PM

Why don't we send some of our nuclear power experts over there to offer assistance in developing a bona fide energy infra-structure. Help em...get off the ground, if you will.

Why don't we do it in the road?

pedro padilla · 09-12-2004, 09:35 PM

how can anyone possibly be surprised out there? north korea has probably 4. three probably built in the last 2 years. these are cases of authentic military buildup dismissed by the administration and relegated to back page importance by the sad excuse for a free and unbiased media. But don´t worry, the Iranians are gonna get theirs. they´re next on georgies dance card. Hmmm... pre election strike or will he wait til right after?

Rekna · 09-12-2004, 09:38 PM

pre-election strike would be political suicide

Rekna · 09-12-2004, 09:39 PM

luckily only congress can declare war so Bush will probably have a very hard time attacking another country if reelected.

Mephisto2 · 09-12-2004, 09:49 PM

Did Congress declare war on Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya?

Just wondering...

Mr Mephisto

Rekna · 09-12-2004, 09:50 PM

Actually yes they did for Iraq and Afganastan. I'm not sure what you are refering to for Lybia though. For Iraq and Afganastan Bush had to get congressional approval. The president has limits on how many troups and resources he can use without congressional approval.

hammer4all · 09-12-2004, 09:57 PM

Bush proved that nations now need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. His policies have only raised nuclear tension around the world.

Ustwo · 09-12-2004, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

Bush proved that nations now need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. His policies have only raised nuclear tension around the world.

Yea if it weren't for Bush, none of this would have happened.

I mean sure Korea said they were going to stop in 94, and sure they said they lied, and sure Bush didn't get elected until 2000, but WHY let facts get in the way of partisan babbling. Its much more fun to blame Bush for all the bad things in the world now isn't it?

And Iran would NEVER look to get a nuclear program started, its only Bush that caused them to think such things.

Rekna · 09-12-2004, 10:35 PM

I don't think he said Bush caused them but that he didn't help the situation any. He tried to help in the way he thought was best and just gave countries more reason to get nukes. Instead of talking them back down he pushed them over the ledge and everyone watched it. Now we have a situation where North Korea admits to having nukes and we don't do anything with them we use "diplomacy". But then we had Iraq that had a few rocks it could throw around and we went in and took them out. That sends a message to every country. Get nukes before the US gets you.

Rdr4evr · 09-12-2004, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Get nukes before the US gets you.

Exactly. Not everyone is going to go out as easily as Iraq, especially Iran.

Journeyman · 09-12-2004, 10:49 PM

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the middle of a big desert be the perfect place to setup nuclear energy plants?

Mephisto2 · 09-12-2004, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Actually yes they did for Iraq and Afganastan. I'm not sure what you are refering to for Lybia though. For Iraq and Afganastan Bush had to get congressional approval. The president has limits on how many troups and resources he can use without congressional approval.

Well, it was an honest question. I thought Congress approved action, but didn't formally declare war. Isn't that why the captives were not designated POWs?

With regards to Libya, I used it as a reference as Reagan attacked it.

Mr Mephisto

smooth · 09-13-2004, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Did Congress declare war on Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya?

Just wondering...

Mr Mephisto

My understanding is we haven't officially declared war on any nation since before the 1960's. We've done numerous end-arounds, but none like the original intent was supposed to be.

The relevant motions, I believe, were claims of support for the pres to use force if necessary. That's not the declaration of war I was taught necessary, and why claims of kerry flip-flopping on the "authorization of war" seem ignorant to me, at best.

True, the way it happened is the process that has been instituationalized, but your strict reading of how that process is supposed to work is the one demanded by the intention and history of our nation going to its pre-modern wars.

hannukah harry · 09-14-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

luckily only congress can declare war so Bush will probably have a very hard time attacking another country if reelected.

last time i checked, the president had the power to wage war for 60 days without congressional approval... so he could attack whomever he wants, and i have a hard time seeing congress saying no after he's started it.

Lebell · 09-14-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

last time i checked, the president had the power to wage war for 60 days without congressional approval... so he could attack whomever he wants, and i have a hard time seeing congress saying no after he's started it.

That is correct.

And anyone who thinks that an Iranian bomb is because of the US and not because of Israel hasn't been paying attention and/or needs to reread their ME history book covering the last 60 years or so.

OpieCunningham · 09-14-2004, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

And anyone who thinks that an Iranian bomb is because of the US and not because of Israel hasn't been paying attention and/or needs to reread their ME history book covering the last 60 years or so.

Which is exactly why the U.S. needs to pressure Israel to get rid of their nukes.

Lebell · 09-14-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Which is exactly why the U.S. needs to pressure Israel to get rid of their nukes.

Israel has never tried to wipe out any of her neighbors, driving them "into the sea".

If the govt. of Iran, along with the rest of the middle east recognized Israel's right to exist and signed a peace treaty with her, I might agree with you.

As it stands, I do not.

seretogis · 09-14-2004, 01:19 PM

I would rather that Israel turn the area into a Nuclear wasteland than have to be the one to tell them to give up their arms to the ones trying to drive them "into the sea."

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-14-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Which is exactly why the U.S. needs to pressure Israel to get rid of their nukes.

Opie, I'm not targetting you specifically here, because this fact seems to have been lost on many people on this board, but... Iran, a country ran by radical Islamic clerics, a country that openly supports terrorism, has signed a treaty stating that they would not pursue nuclear weapons.

Israel is not bound by this treaty, and are well within their rights to have a deterent when all of her neighbors have been trying for years to acquire nukes so they can pass them onto groups like Hezbollah.

The UN needs to grow a fucking sack, do its fucking job, and do something useful for a change. Show some spine stand up to the Iranians, and here is something the UN really needs to do, GET SOME POSITIVE RESULTS!

Mephisto2 · 09-14-2004, 02:14 PM

Mojo,

It's the IAEA that has responsibility for this, not the UN directly.

The UN has consistently called for all nuclear weapons to be removed from the Middle East and I support that call.

Will Israel ever give up its nukes? Nope.
Should it? In an ideal world.

Will ranting about the UN (again) make any difference? Nope.

Mr Mephisto

09-12-2004, 05:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Bad news, but no surprise. Pray that the Israelis launch another pre-emptive strike that the world can publically denounce and secretly be thankful for. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-12-2004, 05:45 PM	#4 (permalink)
QuasiMojo King Knave Location: Lancaster	Like the North Koreans they seem to be using the guise of the "we're only in it for the energy" excuse. Unlike the Koreans, the Iranian government is a theocracy situated riiiiight beside our do or die project in Iraq. Why don't we send some of our nuclear power experts over there to offer assistance in developing a bona fide energy infra-structure. Help em...get off the ground, if you will. __________________ AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

09-12-2004, 06:13 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Define formal? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-12-2004, 06:22 PM	#8 (permalink)
QuasiMojo King Knave Location: Lancaster	FORMAL adj. 1. 1. Relating to or involving outward form or structure. 2. Being or relating to essential form or constitution: a formal principle. 2. 1. Following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations: had little formal education; went to a formal party. 2. Executed, carried out, or done in proper or regular form: a formal reprimand; a formal document. 3. 1. Characterized by strict or meticulous observation of forms; methodical: very formal in their business transactions. 2. Stiffly ceremonious: a formal manner; a formal greeting; a formal bow to the monarch. 4. Having the outward appearance but lacking in substance: a formal requirement that is usually ignored. n. Something, such as a gown or social affair, that is formal in nature. [Middle English, from Latin frmlis, from frma, shape.] I tend to think that EVERYTHING that is done concerning this country is done formally. __________________ AzAbOv ZoBeLoE Last edited by QuasiMojo; 09-12-2004 at 06:25 PM..

09-12-2004, 06:37 PM	#9 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	seriously....is anyone really hoping, secretly or openly, that israel will openly strike iran..... __________________ Live. Chris

09-12-2004, 05:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Lebell, you're a cynical, cynical person! Mr Mephisto

09-12-2004, 05:50 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Does America even have formal diplomatic relations with Iran at present? Mr Mephisto

09-12-2004, 06:21 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Have you appointed an embassador. That's formal. Mr Mephisto

09-12-2004, 06:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Good grief. Have we descended into arguing over definitions of words!?!! Formal diplomatic relations implies the appointment of an embassador and/or the creation of an embassy or consulate. Without those, it would be difficult for America to send technical assistance to Iran to develop a peaceful nuclear industry. Why the nitpicking over words? It's got nothing to do with the thread. Mr Mephisto

09-12-2004, 07:44 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Actually one thing to consider in retrospect is that Israel is not so cold that they would bomb these operating reactors. That's the thing with Osiriak, they hit it before it was operational because they didn't want to strike a nuclear core and risk civilian life. These reactors are juiced up and running, wouldn't be wise to hit them. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-12-2004, 07:45 PM	#14 (permalink)
hascal21 Upright	According the US State Dept., there is no embassy in Iran. Remember they are part of the axis of evil, so I guess we should not have a embassy there. Because why would we want intelligence on the ground there. Why does Iran need a nuclear power plants since they are sitting on the fuel they need to generate electricity. Tehran --> here comes the US Armed Forces.....

09-12-2004, 08:06 PM	#15 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	"axis of evil" I haven't heard such bullshit in my life.

09-12-2004, 08:11 PM	#16 (permalink)
QuasiMojo King Knave Location: Lancaster	Why don't we send some of our nuclear power experts over there to offer assistance in developing a bona fide energy infra-structure. Help em...get off the ground, if you will. Why don't we do it in the road? __________________ AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

09-12-2004, 09:35 PM	#17 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	how can anyone possibly be surprised out there? north korea has probably 4. three probably built in the last 2 years. these are cases of authentic military buildup dismissed by the administration and relegated to back page importance by the sad excuse for a free and unbiased media. But don´t worry, the Iranians are gonna get theirs. they´re next on georgies dance card. Hmmm... pre election strike or will he wait til right after?

09-12-2004, 09:38 PM	#18 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	pre-election strike would be political suicide

09-12-2004, 09:39 PM	#19 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	luckily only congress can declare war so Bush will probably have a very hard time attacking another country if reelected.

09-12-2004, 09:49 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Did Congress declare war on Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Just wondering... Mr Mephisto

09-12-2004, 09:50 PM	#21 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Actually yes they did for Iraq and Afganastan. I'm not sure what you are refering to for Lybia though. For Iraq and Afganastan Bush had to get congressional approval. The president has limits on how many troups and resources he can use without congressional approval.

09-12-2004, 09:57 PM	#22 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Bush proved that nations now need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. His policies have only raised nuclear tension around the world.

09-12-2004, 10:35 PM	#24 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I don't think he said Bush caused them but that he didn't help the situation any. He tried to help in the way he thought was best and just gave countries more reason to get nukes. Instead of talking them back down he pushed them over the ledge and everyone watched it. Now we have a situation where North Korea admits to having nukes and we don't do anything with them we use "diplomacy". But then we had Iraq that had a few rocks it could throw around and we went in and took them out. That sends a message to every country. Get nukes before the US gets you.

09-12-2004, 10:49 PM	#26 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the middle of a big desert be the perfect place to setup nuclear energy plants?

09-14-2004, 01:19 PM	#33 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I would rather that Israel turn the area into a Nuclear wasteland than have to be the one to tell them to give up their arms to the ones trying to drive them "into the sea." __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

09-14-2004, 02:14 PM	#35 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Mojo, It's the IAEA that has responsibility for this, not the UN directly. The UN has consistently called for all nuclear weapons to be removed from the Middle East and I support that call. Will Israel ever give up its nukes? Nope. Should it? In an ideal world. Will ranting about the UN (again) make any difference? Nope. Mr Mephisto