Russia Helps IRAN with Uranium Enrichment

Originally posted by Curio
I really don't see this making any difference...

Secondly, this move was hugely predictable and I think everybody with half a brain cell could see it coming a mile off. It's just classic stalling from Iran - give the Russians something to cling to and divide the UNSC.

Considering the vagueness of this alleged agreement, which if we all remember, Iran and Russia had reached a like agreement in February before Iran backed out, you make a good point above, Curio.

I ran across an interesting perspective to this:

Immediate questions:

1. Did Iran give up their domestic enrichment program? After the gala celebration that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threw when their scientists announced the successful enrichment in their 164-centrifuge cascade, it would seem difficult for him to suddenly announce that the program had ended.

2. Even if they did agree to stop enriching uranium on their own, what kind of verification regime has Iran endorsed in this agreement? Does the IAEA get to conduct snap inspections of all suspected nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic? One would presume that Russia would have required this within the framework of any agreement it wanted the West to accept, but that assumes that Russia cares about the West's reaction any more.

3. Given the recent history of Russian appeasement of terrorists and their enablers, who monitors the Russian facilities and output to ensure that they don't just ship Iran weapons-grade material?
Russia and Iran have reached some sort of agreement on uranium enrichment

Personally, if Russia is to do the monitoring and not the IAEA, I am not liking this agreement one bit, but then again, I do not make the decisions.






seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
A 'yes' or 'no' would suffice, 5ick8oy.
Do you think that Iran should have the right to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons, no matter whether *you* or *others* think there is no proof that they are?

It is you that is confusing the issue, seekerof. If you had actually bothered to read my initial posts and had wanted to contribute to this thread, you MAY have noticed that I was not referring to WEAPONS. The original post was related to nuclear TECHNOLOGY. This does not necessarily mean weapons. I think you will find that it was YOU that started to obfuscate the issue by bringing weapons into the situation. Read the posts before jumping in please.

No, you simply went to running your mouth in spouting half-facts and truths.

LOL.....I asked a question about Russia's assistance in Iran's nuclear enrichment programme. I think you will find that it was YOU that began 'running your mouth' about weapons. Indeed, you said in your first post "it is apparent that you approve of Iran going for nuclear weapons."BIG assumption there, especially since 'weapons' had not even been mentioned until you came along. If you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of other countries enriching uranium to the level necessary to produce weapons, you need to find another thread.

"Rhetoric" and "sweeping statements" beget more rhetoric and sweeping statments.

Well we agree on something at least.

Again, you simply focus on "my beloved leader" but not on Iran's president and his numerous accounts of "cranking up the rhetoric" and "making sweeping statements," huh?

Once again.....irrelevant to my original post. I'd spell it out for you but you clearly do not WANT to engage in a discussion related to the actual subject of the thread. One more try........

Will Bush be more reluctant to use military force on Iran given that the Russians are now helping them to enrich Uranium?

Why SHOULD I focus on the Iranian President's use of rhetoric, it's got nothing to do with the thread.....

No, I chose to engage in "adult" debate with another adult, instead I got into a discussion with one who simply spouts half-facts and truths and then gets offended when questioned or countered.

Believe me I'm not offended. BTW, you may want to read back over this thread to see who it was that began spouting assumptions. And as for the adult debate thing, I have no issue with having a debate. In fact that is why I posted the BBC news story. I simply do not appreciate the way that you jumped in feet first, did not address the subject of the thread, immediately started to make asssumptions about my views on nuclear weapons and clearly wanted to obfuscate the issue.

I ignored nothing in relation to your topic.

Perhaps then you would point me to where in any of your posts you give your opinion on how Russia's involvement will affect US policy on the Iran issue.

All of my comments have been and concerning Iran.

That hardly constitutes relevance in terms of the original point.

Here's a thought, file a complaint?

Oh don't be ridiculous.

Always expect anything you say to be challenged, especially by me.

I'm happy to be challenged, by you or anyone else. However I'm still waiting to hear your views on the post I made.







seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
A 'yes' or 'no' would suffice, 5ick8oy.
Do you think that Iran should have the right to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons, no matter whether *you* or *others* think there is no proof that they are?

For what it is worth I will give you my view on this. I am not a supporter of further WMD proliferation, especially when the country involved is unstable, aggressive and presents a risk in terms of them actually using them in an offensive way. As for having the 'right' to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons, I remain undecided. On the one hand, I would be worried if Iran actually gained nuclear weapon technology. On the other hand, I was worried that Pakistan and India both gained nuclear weapon technology given they were involved in an armed conflict over the Kashmiri region. This has so far not led to a nuclear exchange so maybe my worries are misplaced.

I am however worried about the current US motive for using the issue as a possible precurser to military action. I believe that diplomacy and international co-operation should continue to be used. The way it seems to be panning out is that the US is gearing up for unilateral military action that is not necessarily supported by the rest of the international community.

Given that, as you have pointed out already, Iran may well be able to acquire weapons grade Uranium directly from Russia, the issue of whether they are currently able to enrich to even levels necessary for domestic energy production seems to me to be missing the point.

The invasion of Iraq appears to me to have simply increased the chances of Islamic terrorism as was seen on the London Underground in the first ever suicide bombings in the UK by UK nationals. I personally believe that the average citizen has more to fear from these type of terrorist activities than of being the victim of an Iranian nuclear attack. In taking military action against Iran, I am of the view that the 'West' will further alienate muslims and give added fuel to those extremists who want to pursue a violent campaign against the west.

I believe a policy of continued diplomacy, coupled with monitoring both overtly and covertly is the best way forward. Of course, if it became clear that Iran was about to actually use a WMD, then the West would have the right to retaliate. My view is that any invasion of Iran would further destabilise the region and increase the likelihood of further terrorist atrocities.

Not only Russia is helping Iran with uranium enrichment, but they also sell Iranians loads of weapons, including nuclear ones.

When the Berlin wall fell, the zionist elite tried to conquest Russia with economic means...but the old soviet block stepped up, and with the help of Putin, they chased the zionists away (the richest people in Russia are zionists).

Putin is a former KGB agent. Whoever things this guy "loves democracy and the western way of life" has no idea about the truth. Putin and co. are fighting hard in an underground way against USA. So it is USA + Zionists + Oil Cartel vs Iran + Russia + China.

I hope no nuclear war comes out of this.

Originally posted by masterp
Putin is a former KGB agent. Whoever things this guy "loves democracy and the western way of life" has no idea about the truth. Putin and co. are fighting hard in an underground way against USA. So it is USA + Zionists + Oil Cartel vs Iran + Russia + China.

It is interesting to see the Russians become BBC headline news in this issue at this particular moment. I too wonder what their agenda is in all this. Going back to the original point of the thread, perhaps they are subtley positioning themselves in such a way as to try to deter the Americans from instigating military action??? No doubt things will become clearer over the next few months.

Did You read the article on the BBC Website with regards to Russia Selling Anti Aircraft Missles to Iran... doesnt this tell everyone that russia is more interested in getting a foothold in the middle-east rather than looking for a diplomatic resolution... it is very worrying indeed to the general public... link is below

Oh you have got to be kidding me.

When our defense industry hires a whole army of lobbyists to strong arm the senate and everybody else on the hill to approve arms trade with every dictator that has a wad of cash big enough, we're just doing good business.

When Russia/France/China/Pakistan/Turkey/Israel, you name it, do exactly the same thing, they are all evil and irresponsible bastard.

Dude, US has ALWAYS been the worlds LARGEST arms EXPORTER, of ALL kinds.

Egypt has been arming it self to the teeth with our gear for years now, so what of it?

What if Iran is telling the truth? Maybe they just want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. No chance of that, Iran wouldn't need the number of centrifuges they are talking about acquiring in a relatively short amount of time. And Russia says, "How about some frosting for that yellow cake?"

Again, Israel illegally having nukes and not being in a single treaty is just peachy, Iranians trying to go nuclear is the end of the world. Can you at least sprinkle some sugar on such sour hypocrisy?

well, That was actually payback for their interference in vietnam.

Damn right, the only difference is that we are the ones with a history of social/government sabotage and coups of all kinds. We can start with the "bay of pigs" and just coast from there to Iraq/Venezuela/Georgia/Ukraine, the list just goes on and on.



Even given the world domination agenda, Soviets always managed to either convince other people to do all the fighting for them, or maybe some people actually did not want to slave away their whole lives, and their kids lives on making sneakers, cutting sugar cane and so on.

The fact is that while the hammer and the sickle was supposed to represent the largest work union in the world, our whole economy was bases on the imperialistic success of the colonialism.

Take the Wild West, as American as it can be, right? Well it's the Chinese slave labor that built the rail road so the West can be conquered, or simply put "relieved" from its rightful owners, like Native Americans.

We can do this all day btw.

On that whole Russian things, its just as Curio said. Russians want to enrich for Iranians, so the situation will stabilize and then they can deal with Iran on better terms considering that Chinese just cant wait to strike an exclusive oil contract with Iran.

Simple stuff, look it up and zip up all that Russophobia.

Originally posted by 5ick8oy

At least it gives the 'nuke Iran' nutters another potential target to drool over.

Yeah atleast it does. Thank you russia for making yourself a target! Can we get the show on the road already? Someone just press that button I dare you!


But seriously, When death seems tragic just compare it to the population rate and it makes death worth celebrating. Im not saying attack out without good support, but I think we should let them keep going until their plans to attack us are obvious. I do believe this will be sooner than later.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Personally, if Russia is to do the monitoring and not the IAEA, I am not liking this agreement one bit, but then again, I do not make the decisions.
seekerof

do you know what makes me laugh everytime i see you put similar things like that


who is conducting `snap inspections` of US reactors? or russian ones? or french or british??


the answer is `no one` - this is a case of `do as i say and not do as i do`

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
On the other hand, I was worried that Pakistan and India both gained nuclear weapon technology given they were involved in an armed conflict over the Kashmiri region.

They almost went to nuclear war just one year after testing their weapons....

Pakistan was preparing to possibly fire nuclear weapons during a 1999 border conflict with India, moving the countries closer to nuclear war than was commonly known at the time, according to a new article by President Bill Clinton's chief White House adviser on South Asia.
www.nci.org...

This has so far not led to a nuclear exchange so maybe my worries are misplaced.

Probably a bit early to relax, that region is far from stable, if Musharraf loses power, who knows what will happen?

Pakistan and India should be the perfect example of why we should not allow the creation of more nuclear powder kegs. New kids on the block and they almost immediately escalated things to a crisis. Yeah, we need more of that.

As for your question about Russia's assistance to Iran deterring Bush from military action, when has it stopped them before? If that's what they aim to do, they will do it. Russia and China have been against every military action we've taken since I can remember. And they make that very clear in strongly worded statements, and that's it. Niether country is going to risk nuclear war for Iran, just like I seriously doubt if China really pushed the Taiwan issue, the U.S. would be able to do much about it, it's just not worth it.

Originally posted by 27jd
Pakistan and India should be the perfect example of why we should not allow the creation of more nuclear powder kegs. New kids on the block and they almost immediately escalated things to a crisis. Yeah, we need more of that.

It's a good point 27jd. I wonder if the US would have intervened and tried to force India/Pakistan into scrapping their quest for Nuclear weapons had the Bush administration been in power at the time?? I guess we'll never know.

As for your question about Russia's assistance to Iran deterring Bush from military action, when has it stopped them before? If that's what they aim to do, they will do it. Russia and China have been against every military action we've taken since I can remember. And they make that very clear in strongly worded statements, and that's it. Niether country is going to risk nuclear war for Iran, just like I seriously doubt if China really pushed the Taiwan issue, the U.S. would be able to do much about it, it's just not worth it.

I think you're probably right on that point as well. At least I hope so...

My feeling is that the talk of tactical nuclear strikes against Iran being 'on the table' is little more than 'sabre rattling'. Keep the diplomacy going. Even the threat of military action using conventional weapons, although I am personally against it, I can at least understand. But the nuclear option should remain in the realms of rhetoric and not 'truly' be considered a serious option...

Originally posted by 27jd
Probably a bit early to relax, that region is far from stable, if Musharraf loses power, who knows what will happen?

As far as that particular region is concerned, I agree, it all depends on the longevity of Musharraf. If he is ousted, it could open the way for a more fundamentalist Islamic leader. If THAT happens, given that they have access to Nukes, it could well spell trouble for the region and of course the wider world..... Let's just hope Musharraf lives a long, happy and peaceful life...

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
My feeling is that the talk of tactical nuclear strikes against Iran being 'on the table' is little more than 'sabre rattling'. Keep the diplomacy going. Even the threat of military action using conventional weapons, although I am personally against it, I can at least understand. But the nuclear option should remain in the realms of rhetoric and not 'truly' be considered a serious option...

I've heard conflicting stories on whether or not that was even said or meant, even if it was they're not talking about "strategic" nuclear weapons (city killers) with large amounts of fallout, but "tactical" nuclear bunker busters to hit hardened targets that (theoretically anyway) don't produce the fallout. It's the word "nuclear" that makes it sound as we picture it, giant mushrrom clouds and mass destruction. I'm not an expert on the subject, and perhaps somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.

a nuke is a nuke is a nuke

they go bang - they produce radiation - you`ll get less radiation from a 5MT sky burst @ 100,000 feet , than a 600KT ground burst.

if they hit the ground = LOTS of fallout.

and all this about `nuclear bunker busters` being safe is crap = a test of a 3MT warhead broke the surface after being burried 1900 feet down.

the term` tactical`l only infers battlefield useage - today`s tactical nukes are bigger and more dangerous than the 2 dropped on japan that killed the cities

Originally posted by Harlequin

a nuke is a nuke is a nuke [...]

[...] the term` tactical`l only infers battlefield useage - today`s tactical nukes are bigger and more dangerous than the 2 dropped on japan that killed the cities

Agree with you there Harlequin. I also happen to believe that another effect of 'crossing the threshold' with Nukes would be that a 'precedent' is set that there would be no going back from. In other words, it gives an air of legitimacy about the use of nuclear weapons and that in my opinion is incredibly dangerous.

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
Agree with you there Harlequin. I also happen to believe that another effect of 'crossing the threshold' with Nukes would be that a 'precedent' is set that there would be no going back from.

Agreed, but this implied ‘threshold’ is in and of itself a ‘precedent’.

The realized conceptualizations and ‘plans’ stemming for CONPLAN 8022-02 were reactionary and exploratory which in turn proved less than viable, yet the ‘idea’ obviously has political weight. Imo, the exploration in and of the possible uses of small tactical nuclear weapons and RNEP’s were necessary to bring to the ‘front of the mind’ the true uselessness in pre-emptive tactical strategic strikes into reality.
The yeild requirements are to great to contain and effectiveness is extremely debateable.

CONPLAN 8022-02

Short animated link about RNEP’s

Yet these devices do remain an 'option', but so do ICBM’s for that matter and these also have their own constantly updated ‘plans’, targets and sop’s On that note, almost every US President and the seated Chiefs of Staff of the United States since FDR has had to, at some point, consider the use of nukes as an ‘option’.

Some additional issues involved in using small nukes against countries such as Iran and N. Korea are the political, psychological and collateral repercussions which far too many list or predict. Not to mention the two ‘edged sword’ question which will arise internationally: How can one state justify using a nuclear weapon to attack a state ‘in an act of prevention' of nuclear weapon production?

Addressing the topic: The response from the current US administration will stem from the details of such a ‘cooperative plan’, after the diplomatic shoe has been thrown. Imo, the US will use the UN efforts to buy time while weaning away from Iraq to apply more 'threat implied' pressure upon Iran and I do not believe the US will deviate and possibly ‘pre-empt until’ after fully exhausting diplomatic efforts and leading UN efforts.



mg

Originally posted by missed_gear
Not to mention the two ‘edged sword’ question which will arise internationally: How can one state justify using a nuclear weapon to attack a state ‘in an act of prevention' of nuclear weapon production?

You raise a very interesting issue there and one that should lead to any reasonable person pausing for reflection regardless of which side of the 'fence' they happen to be on.

A good, well balanced contribution to this thread missed_gear. Thanks..

What do you think the Russians do when they hear that the US is developing low-yield nuclear weapons (or bunker busters)? Really, now.

They do it themselves, it's called national defense.

Since Bush has been in office, Russian military spending has increased about 27%. This is nothing new, it's called proliferation.


So explain to me how it is okay for the US to supply Israel with all its helicopters, planes, and missiles (none of which Israel produces), helping to make its Air Force more powerful than any NATO country, and yet Russia cannot sell anything to anybody?

Russia can sell Iran war-planes, missiles, bombs, armor, WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT TO. THEY ARE BOTH SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES. You have absolutely no right to tell anyone what to do, nor to denounce another country for doing what you do.

The United States is the largest arms exporter on the planet and has been for decades. What keeps all the dictators you support in power?