[Androgeos Exeunt]

*files link away for the inevitable argument next time someone says Iran can't be trusted with nukes*

Well, the US could try giving Iran a chance...

[karajorma]

I'm not talking about giving them a chance. It's simply that the argument always ends up with people saying the US can be trusted with nukes while Iran can't. It's always good to point out that the US can't be trusted either.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Exactly, karajorma. If the US has nuclear power that it can use with abandon, why can't Iran do the same? It almost makes the US look like a terrorist nation, since they can use a gun, and some other countries can't.

[Colonol Dekker]

I saw crimson tide two days ago. I say Gene Hackman is to blame. . J/k
Yeah the states obviously have a unique perspective being the only ones to have used any atomic level devices offensively. So far . . . . .

[Admiral_Stones]

Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace said "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness. Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. "Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today."

French environmental groups said the project ITER, was "dangerous", "costly", and "not a job generator". A French association including about 700 antinuclear groups, Sortir du nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear Energy), also claimed that ITER was a hazard because scientists did not yet know how to manipulate the high-energy deuterium and tritium hydrogen isotopes used in the fusion process.

The ITER project confronts numerous technically challenging issues. French physicist Sébastien Balibar, director of research at the CNRS said We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box.

A technical concern is that the 14 MeV neutrons produced by the fusion reactions will damage the materials from which the reactor is built. Research is in progress at IFMIF to determine how and/or if reactor walls can be designed to last long enough to make a commercial power plant economically viable in the presence of the intense neutron bombardment. The damage is primarily caused by high energy neutrons knocking atoms out of their normal position in the crystal lattice. A related problem for a future commercial fusion power plant is that the neutron bombardment will induce radioactivity in the reactor itself. Maintaining and decommissioning a commercial reactor may thus be difficult and expensive. Another problem is that superconducting magnets are damaged by neutron fluxes.

Rebecca Harms, Green/EFA member of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, said: "In the next 50 years nuclear fusion will neither tackle climate change nor guarantee the security of our energy supply." Arguing that the EU's energy research should be focused elsewhere, she said: "The Green/EFA group demands that these funds be spent instead on energy research that is relevant to the future. A major focus should now be put on renewable sources of energy." French Green party lawmaker Noël Mamère claims that more concrete efforts to fight present-day global warming will be neglected as a result of ITER: "This is not good news for the fight against the greenhouse effect because we're going to put ten billion euros towards a project that has a term of 30-50 years when we're not even sure it will be effective."

A number of fusion researchers working on non-tokamak systems, such as Robert Bussard and Eric Lerner, have been critical of ITER for diverting funding that they believe could be used for their potentially more reasonable and/or cost effective fusion power plant designs. Criticisms levied often revolve around claims of the unwillingness by ITER researchers to face up to potential problems (both technical and economic) due to the dependence of their jobs on the continuation of tokamak research. An informal overview of the last decade of work was presented at the 57th International Astronautical Congress in October 2006.

I know that Greenpeace and other environmental groups are trying to save the planet, and I commend them for that, but I find it annoying that they think a FUSION reactor is as dangerous as a fission reactor. The only by-product from a fusion reactor is helium. Aren't they supposed to be much safer?

(Unless the tritium leaks out, and I'm sure that's not as bad as uranium and stuff.)

EDIT: From their website,

Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear risks would thus be created.

 

Greenies Piss me off. Whetether Greenpeace or some Green Parties, the piss me off. Try running an entire ****ing country with solar panels and oversizer ventilators!
IMNSHO Nuclear Power Plants are the way to go, correctly maintained and controlled they are by far the best choice.

[Mobius]

Exactly, karajorma. If the US has nuclear power that it can use with abandon, why can't Iran do the same? It almost makes the US look like a terrorist nation, since they can use a gun, and some other countries can't.

Ha-hem...

1) Iran is interested on nukes and new weapons. No one can simply sit and wait while someone develops nukes and new armaments like the Saegeh(I hope I spelled it correctly) and the recently developed missiles able to hit Israel.

2) Whoever claims that Israel should be cancelled shouldn't be allowed to keep the research on nuclear energy going. They're free to claim that they won't be developing nukes but...it's still dangerous. It's pretty much like giving a gun to a child.

[Mefustae]

Ha-hem...

1) Iran is interested on nukes and new weapons. No one can simply sit and wait while someone develops nukes and new armaments like the Saegeh(I hope I spelled it correctly) and the recently developed missiles able to hit Israel.

Says who? Haven't they only expressed interest in developing a civilian nuclear program to help wean their country off its oil dependence?

2) Whoever claims that Israel should be cancelled shouldn't be allowed to keep the research on nuclear energy going. They're free to claim that they won't be developing nukes but...it's still dangerous. It's pretty much like giving a gun to a child.

They may talk big, but would they really commit to attacking Israel non-conventionally, knowing that it would invite instant retaliation in kind from the US? It's the same thing with people who try to make out North Korea's nuclear "capability" as show-stopping, end of the world type stuff: Dictators need a country to dictate over, and assured nuclear destruction isn't exactly how they want to write themselves into the history books.

If Iran was pursuant of nuclear capability, then it would be entirely for defensive purposes should any nation, perhaps a nation with considerable armed forces in the region and an historically itchy trigger-finger, prove aggressive towards her. In the modern world, nukes are defensive. Say it with me now: Defensive. Only the larger, considerably more powerful nations like the USA and Russia would dare to use their nuclear option in an offensive role, and even then the political ramifications would be devastating to either nation. So why then, when even the most powerful nations on Earth wouldn't dare press the button, is the danger of Iran potentially getting minor capability, in an indeterminate but lengthly amount of time mind you, so critical and dangerous?

[Mobius]

Who can ensure you that they do that only for civilian purposes? Ahmadinejad clearly stated what he wants Israel to be turned into - why would the world let people like those get their hands on nuclear energy?

If we're not sure we can't let them go.

[Kosh]

Here's the reason they want it:

North Korea has something resembling a nuke, and so the US talks with them. Iraq had no nukes what so ever and wasn't even developing them, and so the US invades them. If you were the leader of Iran, which position would you chose, number one or number two?

EDIT: After after reading the article in Bob's link, holy ****. That guy's advocacy for the usage of nuclear weapons for OFFENSE is frightening at best. The trouble is something like a neutron bomb would make WW3 much easier to declare than it should be.

[Mobius]

They shouldn't threaten Israel, anyway.

[KewlToyZ]

The US having Nuclear arms is not a good thing but the US invests heavily in policing the world.
Iran is over run by rather fanatical nearly genocidal groups of self proclaimed righteous dictators.
I agree its like handing a child the controls to a robotic cannon.
It takes very little to do the math.
Iran does not have the capability to provide the net of safety and security to insure the commercial application.
Nuclear arms in that region will have a shelf life of 10 years maximum before someone claims a terrorist organization launched and it was not sanctioned by the government... the usual blah blah blah horse hockey.
Any belief or logic applied to that region is utterly absurd.

[Kosh]

Maybe we should let them blast eachother to bits, then we walk in a pump the oil for ourselves. Anyone have a problem with this plan? Thought not.

[Snail]

They shouldn't threaten Israel, anyway.

So the West can threaten people, but the Middle East can't (note: I am in no way saying Iran should be threatening to wipe Israel off the map. I'm simply saying world values are extremely unbalanced)? I remember Sarkozy said something about a nuclear counterattack if terrorists ever got to France again - Exactly who the hell would Sarkozy target with nukes? Palestine and the hundreds of civilians there? Afghanistan, a bunch of farmers hiding in hills? The best target would be France itself - They're probably on your soil, not in any of the Middle Eastern countries. You can't counter Al-Qaeda, a non-geographical organization, with nukes. So if anything, it's America that is unjustified in having nuclear bombs.

[KewlToyZ]

Don't get me wrong Snail, the thing about the US and its freedoms; you can't see the best without seeing the worst mixed in with it. Most of it just opinions and posturing though based upon the freedom of speech. Individuals can be somewhat more ethical and intelligent than large frenzied groups is an age old crisis as well.
 If the US was so horrible, narrow minded, and held so much animosity it would have just childlishly nuked MECCA in retaliation to 911. That simply is not the case, nor the way the country has conducted themselves. Instead they have placed their stronger youth of the military in harms way trying to root out as much of the Al-Queada leadership as logic and political restraint allows them. Sending aid whenever possible to the peaceful civilian populace trying to push the balance in that region without the barbarism of Saddahm Hussein. It is never going to be perfect of course, the people on those front lines are only human and can only take so much and the media tried to sensationalize and capitalize on the moments giving the Al-Queada network more propoganda as well. The morality of terrorism doesn't exist however. Never has, never will.
Everything living knows right from wrong, some just choose to ignore it and tell themselves a lie enough times to make it seem true. Freedom is dangerous! Should we do away with it? Absurd logical application. Can we respect a nation wishing to have a say in world affairs and empowering themselves to grow? Of course! As long as they recognize others right to survive with mutual respect. Violence & destruction are 100 times easier and quicker than building anything.
You can buy a hammer in a store and murder someone before even walking out the door with it much faster and with less effort and economics than you can build a house for those in need. Do you give a noticably irresponsible group of children a bunch of hammers being trained by Bugs Bunny cartoons day and night about their useage?

What is criminal is the arms race that was capitalized in those countries making them the hellish nightmare it has been.

[karajorma]

Do you honestly believe after reading that article that Reagan wouldn't have tried to use neutron bombs in Vietnam had he been the one in charge back then? Maybe he wouldn't have gotten away with the attempt but I very much doubt the same man who planned the complete overreaction that was the invasion of Grenada wouldn't have considered it.

We were fortunate that he was a decade too late. Don't assume that next time we'll be so lucky.

[KewlToyZ]

Fortunately time has seemed a factor to play an important role in the decision making from Capitol Hill.
Am I absolutely confident in politicians or government? No. I'm only one citizen.
The only difference between a hero and a fool are the witnesses opinions and they never cease to be debated.
Is our worlds societies more informed than the Regan era? Absolutely!
Has this influenced the world in a positive way. Another subject of debate.

[karajorma]

Have you said anything that really relates to the matter at hand? Nope.

The simple fact is that few people claim that the current government of Iran would actually use nuclear weapons. What most people worry about is that a future government might choose to use them and that this is unacceptable. However that article makes it very clear that the US can't exactly claim the moral high ground on the issue.

[KewlToyZ]

I don't trust the volatility of the region period.
One of the reasons the US is even over there is the fact that every Diplomat claimed being powerless to control these terrorist factions and relinquished any responsibility when 911 occurred.
If they can't claim responsibility or control over these terrorist groups in their own backyard they certainly can't be trusted with Nuclear power. I feel it is completely related from my end of things?

[karajorma]

So they can't control terrorist groups that the US funded and trained in the first place and that's their fault?

How come you're not saying that the US can't be trusted for not being able to control terrorists like Bin Laden who they trained?

[KewlToyZ]

I beleive GW senior was/could be logically held responsible for that nonsense while being director of the CIA? Hence, the whole reason we ended up as a country doing a janitorial process for the mess that ensued. So hell yes we as a country are taking responsibility.
You think Iran ever will take any responsibility for nurturing anything but hate for us offering assistance? Hell no!
Those that weren't at the table took it as a personal slight and their fanatical beleifs took hold to dislodge any good that could come from allowing them to autonomously handle things with aid like this.
Yes we armed many of these people and trained them and look what they did with it!
This wasn't some grand evil plot. It was an attempt to help these people balance the region and bring peace at one point.
There was a humanitarian thought process to try and stop the bloodshed at that point with arms.
They appealed and we listened.
Yes, I can look at the entire thing a bit skeptical under the guise of "Blood in the streets and money to be made."

Kara, I've met and worked with Iranians while I was in the Military and they were brilliant, amicable, wonderful people.
I still work with Iranians with my current employment and they are the same. Educated, hard working, and peaceful souls.
I posed the question to them. "Do you think Iran should be allowed to explore Nuclear power and weapons?"
They looked at me like I was insane to even ask. One guy I respect immensely said quote: "The general public and government would destroy themselves." He went on to mention that "Idealistically of course!" but the reality of that region of the world defies logic based on the educational structures in place due to the poor distribution of wealth.

My girlfriend is a Muslim, Thai/Pakistani, with the last name El Hussein.
So my views are not skewed by some sort of naive beleif or predjudice.

Last Edit: