| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2785
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003 |
 |
|
U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html
| Quote: | Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.
A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.
The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was "determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure."
But the latest report says Iran -- which declared its ability to produced enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006 -- could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so.
Enriched uranium at low concentrations can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, but much higher concentrations are needed to yield a nuclear explosion. |
So, it's like I'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING. Iran has NOT done anything to show they're making weapons--it has all been paranoia and idiocy on behalf of our current administration, looking for a new way to start a war.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
redstaterebel
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015"
What if they do in 2010?
I don't think this is a major revelation - i think they are still producing uranium for that ultimate goal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2785
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think they're producing it for electricity like they've said over and over again. What kind of power/electricity methods should they go for in the desert if not nuclear? Wind?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2785
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's not a very efficient or clean method, but I guess it works.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, oil is more efficient than nuclear for Iran because they have so much of it. Obviously the development of nuclear power and the time/resources spent on that is detracting from their oil export productivity, but that's beside the point.
I don't trust the President of Iran. I trust him less than President Bush and that's saying a great deal. I just don't buy that the Iranians are giving up on becoming a nuclear (weapon) power.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redstaterebel
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm afraid I agree Kizz - oil.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1088
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Actually, oil is more efficient than nuclear for Iran because they have so much of it. Obviously the development of nuclear power and the time/resources spent on that is detracting from their oil export productivity, but that's beside the point.
I don't trust the President of Iran. I trust him less than President Bush and that's saying a great deal. I just don't buy that the Iranians are giving up on becoming a nuclear (weapon) power. |
Agreed. Something is very fishy here.
In regards to the president, I feel it is important to remind everyone that that the president of Iran is actually more or less a figurehead, and that the true power rests in the Supreme Leader of Iran, who operates behind the scenes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chuq
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Location: Gulf South
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A recent report, a couple of months ago, said that their oil reserves would be seriously depleted by 2025.
_________________
'Politics' is made up of two words, 'poli,' which is Greek for 'many,' and 'tics,' which are blood-sucking insects.
- Gore Vidal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2785
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To me, something doesn't suddenly magically become more efficient if there's a large abundancy of fuel. Monetarily efficient, fine, but it is not an efficient process itself.
I personally think nuclear energy is the most rational way for just about any country to want to go. Yes, carbon 14 is horrible, but the alternatives are limited without a great deal money spent.
As far as their oil being seriously depleted by 2025, I think most oil sources all over the world are going to be at least somewhat depleted by that time, and I think we'll be coming to some major realizations by that time that we need to be doing things differently.
Maybe by 2025, nuclear energy will seem silly because we'll have put enough into alternative energy sources to make it something affordable, but then maybe that's still just a pipe dream.
I don't trust Ahmedinjad very much either, but I guess I trust the current administration at about the same level--about as much as I trust Israel.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
