Ordr Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02....nuclear.plant/ Hopefully Israel will see this as the last straw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucretius Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02....nuclear.plant/ Hopefully Israel will see this as the last straw. Indeed, how dare they enjoy clean and efficient energy, Argh! *stomps off* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02....nuclear.plant/ Hopefully Israel will see this as the last straw. Me? I'm not so afraid of nuclear power. I'm afraid of nuclear weapons. If nuclear power can lead to a nuke being deployed, then how? If it's because nuclear power leads to nuclear development, and nuclear development leads to nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons leads to nuclear bombings, then why not go further back and say the spirit of exploration lead to all of this? After all, the spirit of exploration leads to finding nuclear resources, and nuclear resources lead to nuclear study, and nuclear study leads to nuclear power. So tell me, should we fear the spirit of exploration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 If nuclear power can lead to a nuke being deployed, then how? If it's because nuclear power leads to nuclear development, .... A nuclear plant can be used to create plutonium (you need a neutron source, which would be your nuclear power plant, and ordinary, unenriched uranium), which can readily be made into nuclear weapons. In point of fact I suspect that it is easier to do it this way (once you have the plant) than it is to enrich uranium to the point where it is weapons grade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 A nuclear plant can be used to create plutonium (you need a neutron source, which would be your nuclear power plant, and ordinary, unenriched uranium), which can readily be made into nuclear weapons. In point of fact I suspect that it is easier to do it this way (once you have the plant) than it is to enrich uranium to the point where it is weapons grade. True enough, but you missed the point of my entire point. Just because something is along a logical chain of events of something happening doesn't mean that, if we're afraid of the result that we should be afraid of the starting point. The best policy is to monitor their actions. And preferably through espionage, as a UN watchdog organization means nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Yeah, it's not really wrong for them to have a nuclear power plant. They have a right to build it, and as we do to question their motives. And I seriously question their motives. But we can't just barge in their and blow the plant up without solid evidence that they have malevolent intentions. Stuck between a rock and Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Yeah, it's not really wrong for them to have a nuclear power plant. They have a right to build it, and as we do to question their motives. And I seriously question their motives. But we can't just barge in their and blow the plant up without solid evidence that they have malevolent intentions. Stuck between a rock and Iraq. Actually, Israel is stuck between Obama and an evil power openly arming itself to destroy them. It is wrong for the State of Iran to exist. From that point on, everything they do, be it nuclear development or "space exploration" just magnifies the evil that we allow to exist. The claim that the Iraq war is somehow preventing Obama from wiping out Iran is ridiculous. Obama is the problem, not the Iraq war. The claim that Iran's intentions are not malevolent, or that there isn't plenty of evidence to prove that they are malevolent, is laughable too. Their stated purpose is to destroy Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Jake's right as rain again. We can't give our sanction to Iran, ever. Whatever Iran does, it does while existing as an absolutely immoral nation that kills its own citizens based on insane religious dogma and a lust for power. They kill Americans and sponsor terrorism against Israel and other targets. I don't care if they are making a chocolate chip factory; they shouldn't be able to move, to exist as they currently are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) Actually, Israel is stuck between Obama and an evil power openly arming itself to destroy them. It is wrong for the State of Iran to exist. From that point on, everything they do, be it nuclear development or "space exploration" just magnifies the evil that we allow to exist. The claim that the Iraq war is somehow preventing Obama from wiping out Iran is ridiculous. Obama is the problem, not the Iraq war. The claim that Iran's intentions are not malevolent, or that there isn't plenty of evidence to prove that they are malevolent, is laughable too. Their stated purpose is to destroy Israel. "Stuck between a rock and Iraq" is a play off "a rock and a hard place" seeing as how there is a rather messed up place next door to Iran. A place we attacked and insisted they had WMDs when they didn't. Should we make the same mistake choice, or have solid evidence before we go in this time? Solid evidence that they are creating nuclear power plants for the sole purpose of creating nuclear bombs. Edited March 22, 2009 by Mammon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 More like this is what's needed. More evidence from our Intelligience Agencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 "Stuck between a rock and Iraq" is a play off "a rock and a hard place" seeing as how there is a rather messed up place next door to Iran. A place we attacked and insisted they had WMDs when they didn't. Should we make the same mistake choice, or have solid evidence before we go in this time? Solid evidence that they are creating nuclear power plants for the sole purpose of creating nuclear bombs. Attacking Iraq wasn't a mistake. There was a possibility that they were building WMD's, and they were a hostile country, and that should've been plenty of reason to destroy that regime. The mistakes were the lies and the attempts to present a case to to the UN. And with Iran, they clearly are a threat to Israel and American forces in the region, so no, we shouldn't wait for solid evidence that they're secretly building nukes to fall from the sky. (where else would you get that evidence from?) We should assume the worst, and act on that assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.