Iran declares key nuclear advance, enriched uranium

#1
Iran declares key nuclear advance

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4900260.stm

Iran's president says his nation has successfully produced the enriched uranium needed to make nuclear fuel.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had joined the nations with "nuclear technology" but again insisted it did not want nuclear weapons.
The US responded to the latest news by saying that Iran was "moving in the wrong direction".
................. i watched 'Dr Strangelove' just last night, it dont seem so funny now.
 
#2
What gets me is, Iran wants to go nuclear, so let them. Why do the Yanks always scream shock horror at others who want to produce nuclear energy. God, no wonder most people round the world hate the Yanks!!!
 
#3
Well said IJ

I hate the yanks as well

Now, back to the Iranian's nuclear weapon programme...
 
#5
And of course the yanks are screaming shock horror at the Iranians because all they want to produce is nuclear energy....?!
Only if its in the form of a bucket of instant sunshine.

Edited as i had a shocker with typing
 
#6
paveway_3 said:
Whats the rant about the yanks for ? Its Iran that has the issues .Or dont you read the papers/ watch the news.
I read the papers also. Here's a couple of Iran's not so well publicised issues:

They can enrich uranium to 2% of what is possible, enabling them to provide nuclear power as an option.

They need to enrich uranium to 90% of what is possible to reach weapons grade.

Too many gullible people out there, who are fool enough to believe the US influenced hyperbole that's slavishly served up day after day in British papers/TV news are the ones with 'issues'.
 
#7
frenchperson said:
paveway_3 said:
Whats the rant about the yanks for ? Its Iran that has the issues .Or dont you read the papers/ watch the news.
I read the papers also. Here's a couple of Iran's not so well publicised issues:

They can enrich uranium to 2% of what is possible, enabling them to provide nuclear power as an option.

They need to enrich uranium to 90% of what is possible to reach weapons grade.

Too many gullible people out there, who are fool enough to believe the US influenced hyperbole that's slavishly served up day after day in British papers/TV news are the ones with 'issues'.
Who says they want weapons grade, they might just want to make a crude nuclear device or give to underisables that might use it against us.
 
#8
dan_man said:
frenchperson said:
paveway_3 said:
Whats the rant about the yanks for ? Its Iran that has the issues .Or dont you read the papers/ watch the news.
I read the papers also. Here's a couple of Iran's not so well publicised issues:

They can enrich uranium to 2% of what is possible, enabling them to provide nuclear power as an option.

They need to enrich uranium to 90% of what is possible to reach weapons grade.

Too many gullible people out there, who are fool enough to believe the US influenced hyperbole that's slavishly served up day after day in British papers/TV news are the ones with 'issues'.
Who says they want weapons grade, they might just want to make a crude nuclear device or give to underisables that might use it against us.
Wow, you've really got the paranoia bug haven't you?? Thank Christ it's only in that wild imagination of yours, and you haven't got the actual means to act pre-emptively. You really should treat what comes out of the undesirable whitehouse as a pack of lies - that's the only safe option in these trigger happy days of the bogus 'war on terror'
 
#9
frenchperson said:
paveway_3 said:
Whats the rant about the yanks for ? Its Iran that has the issues .Or dont you read the papers/ watch the news.
I read the papers also. Here's a couple of Iran's not so well publicised issues:

They can enrich uranium to 2% of what is possible, enabling them to provide nuclear power as an option.

They need to enrich uranium to 90% of what is possible to reach weapons grade.

Too many gullible people out there, who are fool enough to believe the US influenced hyperbole that's slavishly served up day after day in British papers/TV news are the ones with 'issues'.
Or too many people have listened to what the Iranian govt has been saying it should or will do or what should happen to Israel and are worried about the idea of Iran getting nuclear weapons.

You might want to lay off the blinkered anti-american bollix for long enough to see other sides to this issue.
 
#10
frenchperson said:
dan_man said:
frenchperson said:
paveway_3 said:
Whats the rant about the yanks for ? Its Iran that has the issues .Or dont you read the papers/ watch the news.
I read the papers also. Here's a couple of Iran's not so well publicised issues:

They can enrich uranium to 2% of what is possible, enabling them to provide nuclear power as an option.

They need to enrich uranium to 90% of what is possible to reach weapons grade.

Too many gullible people out there, who are fool enough to believe the US influenced hyperbole that's slavishly served up day after day in British papers/TV news are the ones with 'issues'.
Who says they want weapons grade, they might just want to make a crude nuclear device or give to underisables that might use it against us.
Jeez, you've really got the paranoia bug haven't you?? Thank Christ it's only in your imagination, and youhaven't got the means to act pre-emptively
Did I say we should nuke 'em to hell? No, let diplomacy run its course then act.
 
#11
*sigh*

The number of centrifuges they have running through once would enrich 2% which is enough for some types of civil nuclear power, no types need above 5%. However, there is nothing stopping them running the gas through again and again and again. It would take a while but once they're running they *can* enrich uranium to the extent where they could use it in a nuclear weapon. By destroying their ability to enrich now we wouldn't have the problem in 3 years when they are expected to have a bomb whereby we could destroy facilities but we would not know if we'd got rid of their enriched uranium.

Iran are being arrses. They are making trouble. Iran can not be trusted with a military nuclear program. Russia offered to supply enriched uranium to iran and take it away again after, iran turned it down. America are MORE trustworthy with a nuclear program than Iran. At the end of the day any country can not be denied a civil nuclear program (under climate change convention), but we can deny them a military program. Iran with instant sunshine would be a bad thing. They could hit israel, interests in several countries including possibly cyprus and would destabalise the region "we've got nukes, give in or we use" etc.

At the end of the day if we can't stop them doing this through "please don't me mean" tatics then f*** it, bomb them.

I've had enough of these little f***ers, they're a pain in the backside. Anyone or any country that feels another must be "wiped off the map" has some serious problems. I don't want to see another war but I also don't want to see appeasement after appeasement and then "whoops" and everyone who claimed iran were OK fades subtely into the background and everyone else who stayed silent (not in my name?) comes forward baying for blood because x number of innocents have been nastily wiped out by evil evil iran. Or "they used nukes cos they were scared, let's talk to them", that type, wouldn't that be nice.
 
#12
The only happy moment was watching Richard Perle crash-reverse on Newsnight. My oh my Richard 'O what a tangled web....'
 
#13
crabby said:
*sigh*

The number of centrifuges they have running through once would enrich 2% which is enough for some types of civil nuclear power, no types need above 5%. However, there is nothing stopping them running the gas through again and again and again. It would take a while but once they're running they *can* enrich uranium to the extent where they could use it in a nuclear weapon. By destroying their ability to enrich now we wouldn't have the problem in 3 years when they are expected to have a bomb whereby we could destroy facilities but we would not know if we'd got rid of their enriched uranium.

Iran are being arrses. They are making trouble. Iran can not be trusted with a military nuclear program. Russia offered to supply enriched uranium to iran and take it away again after, iran turned it down. America are MORE trustworthy with a nuclear program than Iran. At the end of the day any country can not be denied a civil nuclear program (under climate change convention), but we can deny them a military program. Iran with instant sunshine would be a bad thing. They could hit israel, interests in several countries including possibly cyprus and would destabalise the region "we've got nukes, give in or we use" etc.

At the end of the day if we can't stop them doing this through "please don't me mean" tatics then f*** it, bomb them.

I've had enough of these little f***ers, they're a pain in the backside. Anyone or any country that feels another must be "wiped off the map" has some serious problems. I don't want to see another war but I also don't want to see appeasement after appeasement and then "whoops" and everyone who claimed iran were OK fades subtely into the background and everyone else who stayed silent (not in my name?) comes forward baying for blood because x number of innocents have been nastily wiped out by evil evil iran. Or "they used nukes cos they were scared, let's talk to them", that type, wouldn't that be nice.


46 years, 322 days to be a bit more precise...

 
#14
Where did you get that figure from?

Also what is to say they don't double their centrifuges in the next year, then double again? Suddenly 10 years. What if they triple? How much do they *need* for a bomb. In theory it's only about 5kg I believe (ready to be corrected), however they may be basing their figures on a standard bomb size, rather than how much is needed to go critical. How many bombs?

It's a step in the wrong direction for Iran. By turning down the russian offer and making bad noises towards other nations they are bringing things down on them.
 
#15
they are bringing things down on them.
Which is the intention. Did anyone notice they'd enriched Uranium under 'laboratory' conditions as opposed to whacking through 5 kees of the stuff in one hit?

I did pause to reflect though , given the sheer scale and breadth of the Iranian operation , and how obvious it all is , I did have to wonder how we actually thought Saddam was going to have a Nuclear capability in the next 20 years , never mind 2-5.

Iran wants that confrontation , they want to become the lead Muslim nation , and the President, believes it worth a few thousand dead to unite Radical Islam in his corner.

And he has the perfect US administration to help him achieve that goal.
 
#16
PartTimePongo said:
they are bringing things down on them.
Which is the intention.
*sigh* true

Perhaps they're just the spoilt middle child that's attenion seeking. Look at how much trouble I can cause etc. Just give me five mins with the president, I'll kick his teeth in and threaten to do the same to his backdoors - Then await the announcement that Iran are forgoing any nuclear program. There are serious problems with the current regime in Iran, but yet another power vacuum in a middle-eastern country may be a problem if we set about removing it...
 
#17
crabby said:
There are serious problems with the current regime in Iran, but yet another power vacuum in a middle-eastern country may be a problem if we set about removing it...
exactly, how to force 'international compliance' over the Iranian nuclear issue without it ending up like the chaos in Iraq?
 
#18
One thing's for certain, any ground war/invasion of Iran to replace the Govt there would be CONSIDERABLY more irksome than TELIC. Iran is a significantly more joined-up nation in terms of the population getting along with each other. We would never be welcome (a la TELIC 1) and would certainly see huge reistance throughout. Not sure the British Public (or indeed our good selves in the UK Forces) are ready for the level of cas which would no doubt ensue.

I certainly wouldn't be queueing up to get on the first Herc into Tehran - anyone out there amongst the serving community actually keen on getting involved?

I_T
 
#19
DrStealth said:
crabby said:
There are serious problems with the current regime in Iran, but yet another power vacuum in a middle-eastern country may be a problem if we set about removing it...
exactly, how to force 'international compliance' over the Iranian nuclear issue without it ending up like the chaos in Iraq?
The worst case assumption (that Iran gets nuclear weapons then uses them to gain dominance in the ME, or uses them against Israel) could be as bad if not significantly worse. I doubt that Israel will wait to see if they do get a nuclear weapon before acting, unlike us in the UK, Europe or the US the stakes a lot higher for them, I doubt that many ME Govt's would be that pissed off if Israel pulled off a succesful Osirak against the Iranians either, the Gulf States and Saudia Arabia are most likely equally threatened, if not more so given their proximity to Iran.
 
#20
PartTimePongo said:
I did pause to reflect though , given the sheer scale and breadth of the Iranian operation , and how obvious it all is , I did have to wonder how we actually thought Saddam was going to have a Nuclear capability in the next 20 years , never mind 2-5.
I don't think anyone thought Saddam was near to nukes just prior to us going in. IIRC Al Baredi had certified Iraq as clean for nuclear material. The supposed issue was biological and chemical weapons.

Tricam.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top