"There is more (weapons grade) material on civilian sites than all weapons stockpiles put together"

[PamW]

35. WRONG AS ALWAYS!!

Last edited Thu Apr 5, 2012, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

a commercial nuclear power program the reactor comes with the absolute right to ALSO pursue their own enrichment program
==========================

FABRICATION ALERT -- FABRICATION ALERT -- FABRICATION ALERT

Signatories of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty like Iran are precluded by the Treaty from engaging in activities like HEU enrichment that furthers weapons development. Honestly Kris you do this all the time; you just fabricate "absolute rights" out of whole cloth and never check into the prohibitions.

If a nation is willing to flaunt their responsibilities with respect to the NPT and develop HEU enrichment; then they don't even need a reactor - they just build the enrichment plant without even having a reactor. That is, of course, what Iraq did before the Gulf War of 1991.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm

Research and development of the full range of enrichment technologies culminating in the industrial-scale exploitation of EMIS and substantial progress towards similar exploitation of gas centrifuge enrichment technology.

The Iraqi enrichment program used the EMIS ( ElectroMagnetic Isotope Separation ) technology, often called "Calutrons" because the first EMIS units for the US Manhattan Project were developed by Professor Ernest Lawrence of the University of California who won the 1939 Nobel Prize in Physics for his invention of the cyclotron.

If a nation is going to cheat on the NPT; they don't need to have a reactor to "justify" the cheating.

EVERY nuclear weapons state in the world had their nuclear weapons BEFORE they had nuclear power plants. So the claim that nuclear power plants cause nations to get nuclear weapons is laughable at best.

Your geopolitical "gobbledygook" of "two dimensional views", and "open invitations"... and other random ramblings are less than impressive. See if you can put together something based on logic instead of this nonsensical "handwaving".

The fact of the matter is; nations pursue nuclear weapons for some military advantage over a rival; and that is independent of whether they have a reactor or not. Pakistan and India have a long time antagonism; and taking reactors out of the equation isn't going to change that antagonism. It's simplistic to "think" ( term used loosely ) that it would.

PamW