Iran now to be US' Less Nuclear Trading Partner

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
Iran tentative deal has been reached!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iran-nuclear-deal-announcement-expected/story?id=29952510

Iran agrees to slow its nuclear program and allow inspections plus reduce it's weapon stockpile and exchange loosening of economic sanctions.  Read:  embargo.

Elected politicians are up in arms, but Obama on set on getting this deal done.  Possible the politicos could override the president.

Who thought we'd see this day coming?  Some little country in the middle east must not very happy this morning.
 

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
They already can, if they go to a company like ColoCrossing whom willingly allows gov. data snooping in exchange for amnesty against hosting IR/etc clients.
Throw Wholesale/Datashack in that pile too.  That was established per owner's public admission and it's out there and has been for years on the interwebs.
 

devonblzx

New Member
Verified Provider
Iranian citizens have been able to buy web services for almost a year now if memory serves me.  They removed those sanctions to prevent censorship of citizens, but I believe it still sanctioned Iranian businesses up until now.

While nuclear weapons will probably go down as one of the worst inventions ever (possibly nuclear energy in general if they can't figure out a way to properly dispose of spent fuel rods other than burying them for 10000 years), I find it very hypocritical for nations with nuclear weapons and power plants to jump on every other nation that tries to obtain any sort of nuclear program.   I can see this type of action breeding a  lot of hate towards the US and EU in the Middle East.

It brings up a lot of questions.  Are these actually sovereign nations if the US and EU can regulate what they do in their borders?   Do we need more of a global union (better than the UN) to regulate enriched uranium, carbon pollution, international waterways, or anything else that has a high potential of an international impact?  I'm not usually one for more regulation but I'm not necessarily against a global effort.
 

raindog308

vpsBoard Premium Member
Moderator
While nuclear weapons will probably go down as one of the worst inventions ever (possibly nuclear energy in general if they can't figure out a way to properly dispose of spent fuel rods other than burying them for 10000 years), I find it very hypocritical for nations with nuclear weapons and power plants to jump on every other nation that tries to obtain any sort of nuclear program.  
You may have missed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

190 out of 195 nations have signed it.  You're about 47 years late with your argument.
 

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent

devonblzx

New Member
Verified Provider
You may have missed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

190 out of 195 nations have signed it.  You're about 47 years late with your argument.
No, but I don't see a treaty signed in the height of the cold war and 47 years ago as relevant as what has happened lately.  Most of the people who signed that treaty are dead and many of the governments who signed that treaty are no longer in power.   That treaty may have also looked good back in 1968 when the US and USSR were highly powerful due to their nuclear capabilities, so why wouldn't a country who didn't foresee having nuclear capabilities sign that agreement?  The US has also provided nuclear weapons to Germany, Belgium, Israel, Turkey and possibly others even after the treaty so we haven't been a prime example of honoring it.

I wasn't merely making an argument, I was presenting questions and a possible perspective of citizens in a nation that attempts to enrich uranium being highly restricted and put under international watch while countries who already have nuclear capabilities have much more freedom and international power.  Remember also, uranium enrichment isn't just about nuclear weapons but is also about power plants and other applications. 
 
Last edited by a moderator:

raindog308

vpsBoard Premium Member
Moderator
No, but I don't see a treaty signed in the height of the cold war and 47 years ago as relevant as what has happened lately.  Most of the people who signed that treaty are dead and many of the governments who signed that treaty are no longer in power.   That treaty may have also looked good back in 1968 when the US and USSR were highly powerful due to their nuclear capabilities, so why wouldn't a country who didn't foresee having nuclear capabilities sign that agreement?  The US has also provided nuclear weapons to Germany, Belgium, Israel, Turkey and possibly others even after the treaty so we haven't been a prime example of honoring it.
Sorry, but that is simply untrue.  The US has never provided nuclear weapons to Germany, Belgium, Israel, or Turkey.  You are confusing nuclear sharing with nuclear providing.  The US previously based its own nuclear weapons on the soil of some of those countries (not Israel) but those weapons were never under those nations' control.


You would have a better case with China-Pakistan or US-India, though I wouldn't characterize those deals as "providing weapons" by any stretch.


The US has vigorously fought nuclear proliferation because it's in the USA's interest to do so.  Well, it's in many nation's interest, actually.


The treaty is not some dead document lying in an embassy vault - it's been the subject of a lot of diplomatic work since it was signed.  There have been embargoes based on it.  There have been sanctions and UN resolutions and quite a lot more.  Your characterization of it as some kind of Cold War relic is completely false.  Indeed, it is still one of the key treaties in force today and is regularly referred to.

I was presenting questions and a possible perspective of citizens in a nation that attempts to enrich uranium being highly restricted and put under international watch while countries who already have nuclear capabilities have much more freedom and international power. Remember also, uranium enrichment isn't just about nuclear weapons but is also about power plants and other applications.
I don't think you're familiar with the treaty. 

Every nation has complete freedom to use nuclear power.  There is no limitation on nuclear power programs.  Many nations use nuclear power, and many nations have started or added to their nuclear power programs since the treaty was signed.


I don't know how familiar you are with nuclear weapons, but it's relatively easy to determine if a program is designed for power or if it's designed for weapons.  The treaty has a robust inspection regime which is triggered based on suspected violations (signatory nations agree to this).  99% of the world's nations operate their nuclear programs without incident or inspection.  If a nation tries to cheat, it goes before the UN, which can authorize inspection, monitoring, etc.  This rarely happens because most countries do not try to cheat.
 

devonblzx

New Member
Verified Provider
Every nation has complete freedom to use nuclear power.  There is no limitation on nuclear power programs.  Many nations use nuclear power, and many nations have started or added to their nuclear power programs since the treaty was signed.


I don't know how familiar you are with nuclear weapons, but it's relatively easy to determine if a program is designed for power or if it's designed for weapons.  The treaty has a robust inspection regime which is triggered based on suspected violations (signatory nations agree to this).  99% of the world's nations operate their nuclear programs without incident or inspection.  If a nation tries to cheat, it goes before the UN, which can authorize inspection, monitoring, etc.  This rarely happens because most countries do not try to cheat.
They do not have complete freedom.  They have restricted means under the treaty you pointed out and international pressure.  There are differences in quality when it comes to enriched uranium.  Highly enriched uranium (aka weapons grade) can also be used as a more efficient fuel or for different types of reactors (see fast neutron reactor), there are also going to be intermediate levels between low grade and high grade, but countries like Iran are going to be persecuted if they try to attempt more enrichment or different methods of enrichment.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't trying to develop a weapon, you still seemed to miss my point that I'm pointing out a different perspective than one you and I might see on a daily basis.  The United States maintains a large supply of nuclear weapons, treaty or not, other countries' citizens are going to see that as hypocrisy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
Nuclear everything, aside from inner earth mechanics needs to die.   Was never a good idea.  Never will be a good idea.  We have enough horror on the planet already from such idealistic pursuits of who shall bludgeon the other with the baddest bomb scare on the planet.
 
War is a racket.  Nuclear energy is equally big racket.
 
Proliferation and agreeing to cut back?  Heck, we should probably all be at ZERO nuclear weapons by this point.
 

The US has never provided nuclear weapons to Germany, Belgium, Israel, or Turkey.
 
No US scientists illegally exported the information to build and refine.
 

For some twenty years, Teller advised Israel on nuclear matters in general, and on the building of a hydrogen bomb in particular.%5B66%5D In 1952, Teller and Oppenheimer had a long meeting with David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv, telling him that the best way to accumulate plutonium was to burn natural uranium in a nuclear reactor. Starting in 1964, a connection between Teller and Israel was made by the physicist Yuval Neeman, who had similar political views. Between 1964 and 1967, Teller visited Israel six times, lecturing at Tel Aviv University, and advising the chiefs of Israel's scientific-security circle as well as prime ministers and cabinet members.%5B67%5D
At each of his talks with members of the Israeli security establishment's highest levels, he would make them swear that they would never be tempted into signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.%5B68%5D In 1967 when the Israeli nuclear program was nearing completion, Teller informed Neeman that he was going to tell the CIA that Israel had built nuclear weapons and explain that it was justified by the background of the Six-Day War.%5B69%5D After Neeman cleared it with Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Teller briefed the head of the CIA's Office of Science and Technology, Carl Duckett.%5B69%5D It took a year for Teller to convince the CIA that Israel had obtained nuclear capability; the information then went through CIA Director Richard Helms and then to the US president at that time, Lyndon B. Johnson.%5B69%5D Teller also persuaded them to end the American attempts to inspect the Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona.%5B69%5D Teller's personal opinion became factual assertion, when in 1976 Carl Duckett testified in Congress before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that after receiving information from "American scientist", he drafted a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Israel's nuclear capability.%5B69%5D
In the 1980s, Teller again visited Israel to advise the Israeli government on building a nuclear reactor.%5B70%5D Three decades later, Teller confirmed that it was during his visits that he concluded that Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons.%5B69%5D After conveying the matter to the U.S. government, Teller reportedly said: "They %5BIsraeli%5D have it, and they were clever enough to trust their research and not to test, they know that to test would get them into trouble."[69
Who were these fellows? Oppenheimer and Teller both were part of the Manhattan Project. Both are referred to the father of the atomic bomb.  Both gave documents, information and know-how to Israel.

The later as stated above had Israel agree to never sign to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—have never signed the treaty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

devonblzx

New Member
Verified Provider
Yes, WMDs are a horrible invention.   Every country "needs" one, and none of those countries will be able actually use one.  It's all about fear and a sense of power.

Fast neutron reactors or even Fusion (thinking far in the future) may be more applicable when it comes to energy, if they invest into safety and geographic studies and can truly get the half-life down to <50 years.   Using low-grade uranium and thermal reactors are just bad right now.  The half-life of the nuclear waste being upwards of 10,000 years has disaster written all over it.  Sure they can bury them in salt mines or cement blocks now, but what is going to stop people from accidentally coming across them a thousand years from now when they are still radioactive.
 

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
There is no solution to the radioactive waste mess.  None at this point in history short of launching it into the sun perhaps.   That's hardly a solution compared to the risk and cost.

The US interest in nuclear has been tragic.  A great many lives have been ruined by the stuff from exposure.  There were many open pit ugly dumps of waste all over the place and rail lines where damn hot from transporting the stuff.

The sun provides enough energy in one day on earth to sustain everyone on the planet probably for years.

More solar, more wind, more geo magnetic, more natural solutions out there.  Heck for less than an average new car you can go pure solar today.

Anyone pro nuclear needs to only look at Fukushima, Japan.

In light of that:

Today in British Columbia, Canada ---> "

Fukushima radiation measured on B.C. shore for 1st time
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fukushima-radiation-measured-on-b-c-shore-for-1st-time-1.3022565
 
Top