After the recent disclosure of Irans second 'secret' nuclear enrichment facillity, I have come to the conclusion that Iran is either wanting this nuclear energy to make weapons, and is very stupid, or they are wanting the nuclear energy for the purpose producing energy, and are misguided/misinformed. The latter I believe to be the more likely, but not by much.

Iran built its nuclear facility in secret, something you would only do if you are going to make weapons to use against the people who would stop Iran from making nuclear weapons; it is a configuration for making weapons quickly as opposed to the more slow option of siphoning bits of enriched uranium from the nuclear energy plants that would be used against a neutral party that could not provide significant resistance to Iran (Israel). After the secret facility was discovered, and its existance made public, Iran had to say it was for peaceful purposes nomatter its true purpose. If they wanted nuclear powerplants, they should have made the facility in the open, and invited UN weapons inspectors to verify to the world that the plant was not configured to make bombs.

It is very close to even between the two possibilities, but I feel it is more likely Ahmadinejad is misguided and uninformed, as opposed to stupid. The missile tests of late are most likely in response to the feeling of threat Iran is experiencing from the rest of the world, and especially the United States, a country that could literally scrape them from Earths face, like a pimple. The missile tests would not have been gloated about so by Iran if it was a genuine threat to NATO, but would instead have been denied.

This is why I don't believe Iran is preparing to, or even wants to go to war with anyone; and this path of events will not lead to a war of conventional or nuclear nature, a cold war however is a likely end.

Not of such scale as the infamous cold war between Nato and the Warsaw Pact this one would be, but more like an arms buildup on Irans part, the discontinuation of dismantalation of the united states nuclear weapons program, and various economic and political sanctions on both sides. The United States would win of course, because they have convinced the rest of the world that the Iranians are all extremist terrorists who are completely irrasponsable as a government. This is mostly to take attention form the 1979 assasination by the United States of Iran's newely elected democratic leader, and the subsequent replacement, by the US, of that assasanated leader with another dictator who would do the bidding of the US in Iran.

Aside from the obvious need for UN oversight of any nuclear program (not only of Iran, but of any state with a nuclear program) I do not believe Iran to be a serious threat to anyone at this time, and the United States is wrong in its current sanctions of Iran. Instead, they should attempt bilateral negotiations with the United States at a neutral location.

It is the height of hypocrisy that countries with nuclear power are telling other countries they simply cannot have it. It is regrettable that nuclear energy, whilst being one of the safest energies to produce, is also one of the deadliest when used for weapons. What needs to be done is for countries to sort out their differences, stop making trade embargos, and form a treaty over the correct use of energy.

Yes America, UK, Russia, etc. That does mean you have to get rid of all your pretty Nuclear warheads, but I'm afraid that with them, you just look like the rich kid with all the toys, and you act like the bully who wants to be in control. Soon as you grow up, and act your age, you can start discussing weapons for defense purposes.

If peace treaty's could be signed AND maintained, we probably won't need defenses at all. Its an unrealistic scenario though, I know.

(2nd October 2009 11:32)Tiberius Wrote:  whilst being one of the safest energies to produce

Did you mean to say 'safest'? Cheapest maybe.

Quote:It is the height of hypocrisy that countries with nuclear power are telling other countries they simply cannot have it

Snap.

I was under the impression that Iran,like North Korea is a sovereign nation.

As far as I'm was aware,one sovereign nation does not get to 'allow' another to do jack shit.

In Iran's (or Korea's) place I would tell the US or anyone else trying to interfere in the affairs of my country to piss off.

"What? You want us to allow you send INSPECTORS to our facilities to see if you approve?---Go fuck a camel"

Well OK,I probably wouldn't. If you don't play nice the US they will bring you democracy.You know,like they to did to Iraq, collaterally damaging a few million civilians along the way.

(2nd October 2009 12:18)fr0d0 Wrote:  

(2nd October 2009 11:32)Tiberius Wrote:  whilst being one of the safest energies to produce

Did you mean to say 'safest'? Cheapest maybe.

Safest as in least destructive to the environment. Though to be honest, most accidents are down to human error rather than any danger in the process.

How is it safer that windpower, say? You have to store the spent rods safely don't you?

Wind Turbines damage the environment more than you think. They create an eyesore, are incredibly annoying, and have been linked to the death of many animals and insects which rely on certain sounds to get around.

I fail to see what storing the rods safely has to do with anything. If you store the rods safely, what is the problem?

Wow Tiberius,

I've never heard of those factors when considering wind generation. I HAVE heard that when the fan stops working there is a giant waste in the form of a broken fan to deal with.

Rhizo

The fact that they need storing safely indicates the potential danger. I think it takes a step into incredulity to equate the damage wind farms cause. Define "incredibly annoying". Personally I find them attractive; Any noise is very local to the individual turbine; There are costs in repair and transport - some of these things are big ...hardly equates to the environmental impact of a Nuclear Power Plant.