Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:57 PM
bananas (24,061 posts)
World powers want new nuclear talks with Iran quickly
Six world powers agreed on Wednesday to seek renewed talks with Iran as fast as possible, reflecting a heightened sense of urgency to resolve a long rift over Tehran's disputed nuclear activity and avert the threat of war.
Their call coincided with growing evidence of Iran expanding nuclear capacity in an underground bunker virtually impervious to attack and follows the November 6 re-election of President Barack Obama, which has cleared the way for new contacts.
Senior diplomats from the six countries - the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany - met in Brussels on Wednesday to consider new negotiating tactics despite abiding skepticism that a deal with Tehran can be reached.
It was not clear after the meeting what options, if any, were agreed. But the six said "necessary contact" with the Iranians would be made "in the coming days".
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/21/us-iran-nuclear-statement-idUSBRE8AK0W420121121
The MIT report "The Future of Nuclear Power" stated:
To preserve the nuclear option for the future requires overcoming the four
challenges described aboveŚcosts, safety, proliferation, and wastes. These
challenges will escalate if a significant number of new nuclear generating
plants are built in a growing number of countries. The effort to overcome
these challenges, however, is justified only if nuclear power can potentially
contribute significantly to reducing global warming, which entails major
expansion of nuclear power. In effect, preserving the nuclear option for the
future means planning for growth, as well as for a future in which nuclear
energy is a competitive, safer, and more secure source of power.
None of those four "challenges" have been overcome, and they probably never will.
That report was written in 2003, we now know it underestimated each of those four "challenges".
We've seen each of those challenges escalate over the past nine years, and they're going to continue to escalate, as we see in this news story.
Nuclear isn't needed at all to solve the climate crisis - as Al Gore has pointed out, we have enough resources to solve several climate crises, and we only need to solve one.
So there's no justification to "preserve the nuclear option for the future".
Iran should join France, Japan, Germany, and other countries which are reducing or eliminating nuclear energy, and stop wasting money on this dirty, dangerous, expensive technology.
5 replies, 1357 views
World powers want new nuclear talks with Iran quickly (Original post)
Response to leveymg (Reply #1)
Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:41 PM
cstanleytech (7,286 posts)
3. Ya know, I am sick and tired of the old "But so and so needs to do it first" line.
Two wrongs dont make a right and as long as nuclear waste is a long term problem we should be discouraging in every way the building of new plants by any government even our own.
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #3)
Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:26 AM
leveymg (29,517 posts)
5. Why is no one talking about making war on Israel unless it abandons its illegal nuclear arms?
Israel never even signed the NPT, and has hundreds of warheads. Iran doesn't have one. Israel continually uses violence against its neighbors, and on several occasions has initiated major wars. Iran hasn't.
The point is this: isn't it time the U.S. and the international community exercised some balance and perspective in its anti-proliferation efforts?
Response to bananas (Original post)
Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:06 PM
Ash_F (4,435 posts)
2. That MIT report seems on target but sharply criticizes the US and Japan's position...
...on nuclear power. Russia too. Doesn't mention France or Germany.
The major powers should lead from the front on this.
Response to Ash_F (Reply #2)
Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:43 PM
cstanleytech (7,286 posts)
4. The major powers couldnt find their ass with radar guidance and ground control let alone
finding how to lead from the front on anything unless its something the 1% of the world wants them to lead from the front on.