Iran unveils first nuclear plant

[Turborama]

Source: Al Jazeera English

Iran's president has inaugurated the country's first nuclear fuel production plant on the Islamic republic's "national nuclear day".

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday opened the facility during a ceremony in the central city of Isfahan, home to a separate uranium facility, officials said.

The move came as Tehran considers an offer by six world powers, including the United States, to take part in fresh talks amid western concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.

The new facility will produce uranium fuel for a planned heavy-water nuclear reactor but western powers fear the reactor could eventually be used for producing a nuclear weapon.

Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/20094913575058450.html

---

Iran says running 7,000 enrichment centrifuges

Source: Reuters

TEHRAN, April 9 (Reuters) - Iran is now running 7,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, a senior official said on Thursday, an announcement likely to increase Western concerns about the Islamic Republic's disputed nuclear plans.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, also said it had obtained the technology to produce more "accurate" centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium.

Referring to the inauguration of a nuclear fuel production plant by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier on Thursday, he said in a televised speech: "Today we praise ... the accomplishment of the last stage of the nuclear fuel cycle."

From: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKDAH95156720090409

[Turborama]

1. Self delete

- the speech is over

[Barack_America]

2. And no admonishment from the US so far, right?

Wonder what Israel thinks of that?

This is also interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/moscow-open-severe-punishment-iran-nuclear-program/

Also this from yesterday.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/04/iran-obama-us-nuclear-israel-switzerland-secret-war-bombing.html

[ddss75]

3. BOOM!!!!

Here it comes.

[alfredo]

4. The enrichment level tells all. Uranium enrichment for power plants

is not suitable for bombs. The centrifuges they have are not suitable to produce bomb grade uranium.

The media doesn't differentiate between the 3-4% enrichment used for power, and the 90% enrichment needed for bomb production. I wouldn't get upset over low grade enrichment because it would mean they are telling the truth about wanting nukes for domestic energy. The more nuclear power, the less domestic oil they'd be able to sell to other countries.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. That is, "The more nuclear power, the more domestic oil they'd be able to sell"

And you are right, IMO. All the people who say "they're sitting on an ocean of oil - why would they need nuclear power?" are ignoring the fact of peak oil, and the necessity of having that oil available for sale rather than for burning up in their power plants.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1218446181749

If the Saudis see a need for nuclear plants, is it unreasonable that the Iranians would?

[alfredo]

11. It's called "long range planning" something US businesses and politicians

avoid like the plague.

Iranian oil is heavy crude. It's more expensive to refine.

[ShortnFiery]

18. It's too convenient for the right wing hate radio to always forget the fact of oil "refinement"

when they claim that there's NO WAY that Iran would need to develop Nuclear Power Plants.

The rest of the World is SICK of all this "pre-emptive" bullshit.

Enough! :thumbsdown:

[alfredo]

21. Their oil infrastructure is in a terrible state. They've had to import refined

products.

[high density]

42. So is there some reason why US politicans can't figure that out?

We could build Nuke plants if we wanted to, but this country has a massive phobia about using alternative energy for either environmental reasons or NIBYism. So oil, coal, and natural gas it is.

[excess_3]

35. run it thru twice, for more enrichment

higher levels of enrichment are easy

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. That 'boom' would be the Israelis bombing the plant, not any

fictitious bomb the Iranians are building.

[ddss75]

7. That's what I meant

[Turborama]

8. That was my interpretation of that comment

Do you think they will, though?

I hate to think what would happen if they did...

[Barack_America]

9. Biden already signaled that we would not have their back in such an action.

When he bluntly said that it would be "unwise" for Israel to bomb Iranian nuclear power plants.

My guess is they won't.

[ddss75]

10. No

I don't think that the Israelis would bomb them. If they were going to, it would have happened before Bush left office. What worries me is that the Iranian nuclear program is destabilizing for the area. You are going to see Saudi Arabian, and maybe to a lesser extent Kuwaiti nuclear program starting up. Maybe even Jordan. All of those majority Sunni nations are not going to stand by and let a Shiite country arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. See my post #5 above.

There already ARE nuclear programs, and NONE of them are about building bombs. It's a whole different level of technology.

The Iranian program has NEVER been about building a bomb.

[ShareTheWoods]

13. Ummm right... and there are no gays in Iran either

Did the prez of Iran tell you that personally or did they let you poke around their nuclear labs to verify it yourself?

[Turborama]

15. Mr Kristol?

:yoiks:

[ShortnFiery]

19. Ever since we invaded Iraq, every nation in the M.E. is doing their damnest to acquire Nukes.

The Bush Administration was the KEY factor second to the invasion of Iraq to encourage "Nuking up the M.E. Hood." :(

[ShareTheWoods]

14. Iran is finally going green it seems

Maybe it will spread around the rest of the Arab areas.

[Doctor Cynic]

16. Are you sure it's not *glowing* green?

[Psephos]

17. lol DU luvs the idea of nuclear energy in Iran, but not in the US

and there's simply no chance that the official Iranian government explanation of what they're up to isn't true

I mean, if there was even a chance that Iran (run by fundie mullahs awaiting the Twelfth Imam) might end up with a nuke, and such a nuke might make its way into the hands of someone from Hezbollah (like all those other Iranian armaments), then we'd wonder whether that was such a great idea. Because even if the chance of a nuclear detonation is very small, the fact that said detonation could easily lead to world war and nuclear winter, killing hundreds of millions, and wrecking life as we know it, would make us do whatever it takes to prevent the catastrophe, even if (I shiver to think it), that required modifying a political position.

But there's simply no chance of this outcome whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. So what me worry?

[ShortnFiery]

20. What makes you think that Iran's crazies are any more dangerous than OUR crazies?

We are all human beings and they love their children too.

We need to use diplomacy and stop with this "bombing the shit" out of the SCARY ... EVILDOING OTHER.

We are all human beings - let's start from that point and stop with the hyperbole?

[Psephos]

22. SnF, reread what I said

I specifically alluded to a nuke showing up in the hands of Hezbollah. Iran is a mullahocracy, run behind the scenes by a Supreme Council in thrall to the dictat of Ayatolloh Khameini. The Iranian president himself has openly confessed to apocalyptic visions. (Do you remember the "spell of mental control" he actually thought he conjured at his 2006 UN speech?). Ahmadinejad has openly stated that his destiny is to usher in the 12th Imam. He has organized and hosted international Holocaust Denial convocations in Iran. He has made the Middle East more tense and less stable with his flapping jaw.

Iran provides weapons, zealots, and intel to Hezbollah, which functions as an Iranian cat's paw. If you seriously think there aren't some fanatics in Hezbollah who would detonate a nuke if they could get one, then we shouldn't continue this discussion.

Meanwhile, even though the question of relativism between "their crazies and our crazies" is a separate issue, the nuclear weapon safeguard policies of the US government are infinitely more stable and redundant than anything a group of rogue religious nutjobs would apply. Is that not obvious to you?

[ShortnFiery]

23. I did read what you posted above. It's "hyperbole." Iranians, whatever stripes do NOT love ...

their children less than WE do.

What makes you think that they are STUPID?

BTW, the President of Iran is essentially "a figurehead."

Stop making these people less than human. You do NOT address what motivates them ... not all is justified, but your posts are severely lacking in foundation and background. :(

[Alamuti Lotus]

24. ah, but making them less than human makes them so much easier to bomb

I say good to the progress; perhaps the aggressor states will think twice (a tall order, as 'thinking once' is often too much to ask..) before maintaining their standing policy of provocations. Let the keyboard commandos rant and whail with their blatent propaganda, as their impotence grows so will their resentment.

[Psephos]

28. I have plenty of Iranian friends (my gf is Persian) - so your assumption is both loony and crass

Persians are extraordinarily human. I said nothing about Iranians not loving their children. I will punch in the gut anyone who says to my face they're less than human.

Hey, a couple more bales of straw from you and we can have a hayride. :-P

My reference was to the fundie mullahs. Maybe you luv fundies. Personally, I see them implicated in many or most of history's worst miseries. If you think the "figurehead" Ahmadinejad can gainsay the mullahs and survive, you are naive. If you think theocratic fundies who know that sharia is the answer to the world's problems, and believe God has destined them to force others to toe the sharia line, are busy building Atoms for Peace, you are worse than naive. :eyes: This has nothing to do with the Iranian people. I guess next you're gonna accuse someone who criticizes the equally loony Kim Jong-Il of "dehumanizing" the sad-sack North Korean people.

But what the hell, it's just a discussion board. I come here for entertainment, and I got plenty of that in this thread tonight. :evilgrin: :toast:

[ShortnFiery]

36. LOL, you have a gf. ... Oh, yeah. Guess what, I was BORN in that country.

:wow: Citizen of the USA Born Abroad on a military-diplomatic mission.

Furthermore, it's not for entertainment only, this is for HUMAN LIFE.

Go take your military swagger over to the fundy sites. I served in the military and not amused by your bluster. :puke:

I'd appreciate it if you would hesitate to respond to my future posts.

[Psephos]

38. Born there, but didn't learn much, apparently

lol

[ShortnFiery]

43. You and your mighty keyboard.

:eyes:

"In-sha Allah" will rise above the willfully ignorant such as yourself.

[Turborama]

25. If you swap Iran for Pakistan and Hezbollah for the Taliban, we're much closer to the scenario

you paint in post # 17 and in the last paragraph in the post above.

Pakistan already has nukes and they are undergoing what could easily be described as a civil war against fanatics in the Taliban who would detonate a nuke if they could get one.

I have a feeling that this is less about a nuclear winter affecting the world and more about what might happen to Israel IF Iran ended up with a nuclear arsenal?

The hypothetical Iran scenario is not immediately possible, the Pakistan one is.




(edit to fix typo)

[Psephos]

29. I think you make a good point

The difference here is that Pakistan already has nukes. I wish you'd left that Israel statement out of your post, though. Not only was it incorrect, but it was offensive. This issue is far larger than the parochial interests of Israel, the Palestinians, and Iran.

It's a matter of self-evident logic that the risk of nuclear war rises with the number of entities who possess a nuclear weapon. (Can't wait for the "explanation" from someone of why this actually isn't the case. lol) It amazes me no end that many who identify themselves as progressives actually endorse the acquisition of nuclear weapons by more parties. !!! Think about that.

I was THRILLED to hear Obama's recent statement of his vision of a nuclear-free world. That's the direction to move toward.

[Turborama]

30. Actually, there is an imbalance of power in the ME and there are two countries that have recently

been starting wars whenever they want, however they want against whoever they want. Those two countries are America and Israel.

Iran has been around for a lot longer than America and they are unsurprisingly more than just a bit annoyed about being told what to do by such a relatively young country.

I am anti nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, btw. Much more for sustainable renewable enegry and no nuclear wars. Also, I'm actually pretty much on the fence about the whole thing and think that maybe Iran could quite easily set up solar farms for it's electricity, if they need a new source of energy.

However, if Iran were to concede and dismantle it's power station because of fears about what Hezbollah might do sometime in the future with something that might be made, I think it would be only fair if Israel disarmed it's existing nuclear capability, too.

Apologies if you were offended by my questioning your motives for talking about Hezbollah, btw.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Hezbollah is no more evil than our Neo-Cons.

Figure it out, you're smart boys. :eyes:

[Turborama]

41. Why are you directing that comment at me?

Maybe I should have written "might" with caps or italics to make what I was implying clearer?

[Alamuti Lotus]

26. as said by a citizen of the only country on record to use nuclear weapons in war

Your paranoia would be cute if it weren't laced with such chauvinist venom. How can you sleep at night with such fearsome bogeyman occupying your dreams?

[Psephos]

27. lol n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

32. Ah yes, I remember you now.. didn't get any real response back then, either

the narrator then asks himself: why the repeat Retarded Alamo dance, O Self? Dost I really not something better to do? Sadly no.


...that was odd, even by my own standards.

[Psephos]

39. the power of your rhetoric leaves me panting in jealousy :)

[Alamuti Lotus]

46. admittedly, that wasn't some of my best work

But when some of my 2nd/3rd tier efforts are flatly ignored, that's the kind of effort I can muster up.

[EFerrari]

31. I don't think you have anything in Ann Arbor that Iran wants. You're pretty safe!

[Alamuti Lotus]

33. But life as we know it could be wrecked!

I wonder if he's old enough to have swallowed the same line about those pesky Russkies... What a mighty bother it is for this advertising reel to always present such terrifying creatures always waiting right around the next corner..

But yes, you are correct -- the Iranian menace is content to occupy Dearborn, there is no threat to Ann Arbor or Battle Creek. However, I have it on good terms that Hizbu'llah will unleash nuclear winter if Ypsilanti does not immediately surrender it's freedoms over to Hugo Chavez.

[EFerrari]

34. They hate us for our Gameboys.

lol

I saw this great BookTv segment done by a travel writer who went to Iran and obiviously fell in love with it. Rick Steve. It's about an hour twenty.

http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=LW-10205

[Psephos]

40. It's not what Iran wants, it's what some future fringe fundie wants

I know what Iran wants (and by that, I presume you mean, the people of Iran, and not their medieval mullah overlords). How? I used my common sense - but if you need a credential, also because my Iranian girlfriend has told me. They want exactly what we (and all "little" people) want - good family, a job, civility, a sense of life's meaning, health, freedom from fear.

I see a new era of nuclear proliferation abloom in the world, which undeniably increases the chance that a nuclear weapon will end up in the hands of an unstable regime or extremist groups. More weapons in more hands means an increasing chance of some idiot detonating one. The resulting nuclear war will definitely affect Ann Arbor, as well as Tehran, as well as Paris, as well as Buenos Aires, as well as the Fiji Islands and anyplace else you care to name.

Are there still progressives who think, like I do, that Obama's initiative for a nuclear-free planet is a good one and needs to be acted upon? Apparently, not as many as I would have thought here on DU. Instead, we've got numerous people actually defending and promoting the acquisition of nukes by more countries. :crazy:

[ShortnFiery]

44. Newsflash Captain Spalding: Iran is a SOVEREIGN nation.

[EFerrari]

45. Triple decker baloney sandwhich.

The world doesn't want more nukes.

If Iran actually wanted them, they'd have them already.

No one here is defending proliferation.