Home Mail Chat Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > Washington DC and The Holy Land

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-11-2006, 11:23 AM  
Dave Lane Dave Lane is offline
Space Cadet and Aczabel
 
Dave Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Kansas City, Mo, USA
Casino cash: $43375
VARSITY
Ahmadinejad: Iran will join nuclear club Iran announces they have enriched uranium

Ahmadinejad: Iran will join nuclear club
Comments came amid news Iran has enriched uranium

Tuesday, April 11, 2006; Posted: 1:06 p.m. EDT (17:06 GMT)


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani said Tuesday.

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand, saying it has a right to develop the process.

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, is due in Iran this week for talks to try to resolve the standoff.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran "will soon join the club of countries possessing nuclear technology." Speaking to a crowd in northeastern Iran, Ahmadinejad was quoted by the television as saying, "Enemies can't dissuade the Iranian nation from the path of progress that it has chosen."

Iran's nuclear chief, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, announced further progress in the program, saying Iran has produced 110 tons of uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment.

The amount is nearly twice the 60 tons of uranium hexaflouride, or UF-6, gas that Iran said last year that it had produced.

Aghazadeh made the announcement during a nationally televised speech in the northeastern city of Mashhad, attended by top military commanders and lawmakers. Ahmadinejad was expected to speak after Aghazadeh to formally announce the successful enrichment.

Tehran is "moving in the wrong direction," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. If it persists, the United States will discuss possible next steps with U.N. Security Council members, McClellan said aboard Air Force One en route to Missouri.

Rafsanjani -- a former president who is currently head of the powerful Expediency Council, a key governing body -- released the news of the enrichment first in an interview with the Kuwait News Agency in Tehran.

"Iran has put into operation the first unit of 164 centrifuges, has injected (uranium) gas and has reached industrial production," Rafsanjani was quoted by the agency as saying. The interview was also carried by the Iranian Student News Agency.

"We should expand the work of these machines to achieve a full industrial line. We need dozens of these units (sets of 164 centrifuges) to achieve a uranium enrichment facility," he said.

Enriching uranium to a low level produces fuel for nuclear reactors. To a higher level, it produces the material for a nuclear bomb. Iran would require thousands of operating centrifuges to produce sufficient uranium for either purpose. But once the unit of 164 centrifuges is up and running, its scientists have the opportunity to perfect the technology for larger-scale production.

It was the first announcement that Iran had successfully enriched uranium. in February, Iran began research at its enrichment facility in the town of Natanz.

The United States and some in Europe accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, an accusation Tehran denies, saying it intends only to generate electricity.
Iran's announcement precedes IAEA visit

The IAEA is due to report to the U.N. Security Council on April 28 whether Iran has met its demand for a full halt to uranium enrichment. If Tehran has not complied, the council will consider the next step. The U.S. and Europe are pressing for sanctions against Iran, a step Russia and China have so far opposed.

In London, a spokesman for the British Foreign Office recalled that Iran was under Security Council orders to "resume full and sustained suspension of all its enrichment."

"The latest Iranian statement is not particularly helpful," the spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with government policy.

Rafsanjani said the breakthrough would put Iran in a good position for the visit of ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"When ElBaradei arrives in Iran, he will face new circumstances," Rafsanjani said, according to KUNA.

In Vienna, officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors are now in Iran, declined to comment on the report.

But a diplomat familiar with Tehran's enrichment program said it appeared to be accurate. He demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss information restricted to the agency.
Rafsanjani's role unclear

It was not clear why the announcement came first from Rafsanjani, who is heading to Kuwait on Wednesday. The ultra-conservative Ahmadinejad defeated Rafsanjani, who had the support of Iran's reformists, in presidential elections last year. Rafsanjani may have been trying to upstage the president and show Iranians that he remains powerful.

Kamal Daneshyar, head of Energy Committee at the Iranian parliament, said the announcement means Iran has mastered the technical hurdles needed to enrich uranium to the 3.5 percent required to produce fuel for a reactor.

"This is a major achievement. It means Iran is now able to produce nuclear fuel for its future nuclear reactors without any reliance on foreigners," Daneshyar told the AP.

In the enrichment process, uranium gas is pumped through a series of centrifuges, where it is spun to purify it. But the process is technically difficult, requiring delicate pipe connections between dozens of centrifuges -- or hundreds for larger scale production.

Well neo-cons what say you? Kill them all?

Dave
Posts: 38,079
Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 09:08 PM   #31
Dave Lane Dave Lane is offline
Space Cadet and Aczabel
 
Dave Lane's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Kansas City, Mo, USA
Casino cash: $43375
VARSITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav
I admit I don't expect diplomacy to work. That said what we need is a surrogate to take out there capability and not do it ourselves. Whether that be British, Israeli, French whatever the best course is for us to appear to be staying above the fray and out of this situation.
Maybe we could send Jack Bauer They are going to get the bomb all we can really do is retard their progress. I am less scared of them than North Korea actually and NK already claims to have a bomb.

Dave
__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.
Posts: 38,079
Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 09:09 PM   #32
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $19337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav
I admit I don't expect diplomacy to work. That said what we need is a surrogate to take out there capability and not do it ourselves. Whether that be British, Israeli, French whatever the best course is for us to appear to be staying above the fray and out of this situation.
That would be nice, but aside from possibly the Israelis (who would need our help anyway as Adept correctly, IMO, points out), I don't think anyone else can get this job done.

Adept got me to thinking though. What if Iran does end up getting nukes. It might be a good excuse for the Iraqis to let us build permanent bases on Iran's doorstep as a deterrent ala our forces in Germany and South Korea.
__________________


“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton
Posts: 90,231
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 09:09 PM   #33
Logical Logical is offline
Screw U if U can't take a joke
 
Logical's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept Havelock
Maybe, but I doubt it. The strike against Osirak stretched the IAF to it's limits. From everthing I've read, the sustained air offensive that would be required by a serious counter-nuclear campaign against multiple hardened targets is beyond the capabilities of the IAF. They may well be among the best trained Air Forces in the world, but their aircraft just don't have the legs, nor do they have sufficent tanker aircraft for such a sustained effort at power projection.

The US might provide tanker support, but if we go that far, what's the difference between that and open war? There's also the pesky problem of other nation's airspace. Are we sure the Saudi's would back this? Our pet Iraqi's sure, but how about the other nations?

I sure as hell wouldn't take the IDF on it's home field. That's for sure. I doubt the Iranian's are dumb enough to either. MAD still works, whether the WMD's involved are Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical. Again, JMO.
The big difference is that tankers can refuel far enough away that no one will know we participated. There is also the option of getting another one of our allies to do the refueling. Staying in appearance above the fray is IMO critical.
Posts: 31,579
Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.Logical is not part of the Right 53.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 09:13 PM   #34
Dave Lane Dave Lane is offline
Space Cadet and Aczabel
 
Dave Lane's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Kansas City, Mo, USA
Casino cash: $43375
VARSITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
That would be nice, but aside from possibly the Israelis (who would need our help anyway as Adept correctly, IMO, points out), I don't think anyone else can get this job done.

Adept got me to thinking though. What if Iran does end up getting nukes. It might be a good excuse for the Iraqis to let us build permanent bases on Iran's doorstep as a deterrent ala our forces in Germany and South Korea.

I'm not sure how much good Israel is at this point the ME tends to see Israel as the 51st state anyway so ultimately the blame will rest on our doorstep. Now if France or England went in I'd be for that one.

Actually the fact that we could invade on a couple of weeks notice Iraq or not is pretty good deterrent beyond even the nuclear option.

Dave
__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.
Posts: 38,079
Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 09:32 PM   #35
Adept Havelock Adept Havelock is offline
Obligatory Thoughtcriminal
 
Adept Havelock's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Flux,awaiting an observer
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
Fair enough.
Thank you for your graciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
The Soviets didn't storm the Fulda Gap, but they did feel free to blockade Berlin (maybe a little before the Soviets were really nuclear), invade Czechoslovakia, and invade Afghanistan among others. The reason they didn't attack central/western Europe through the Fulda Gap was because we were prepared to respond to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons. Are we going to lay down the same law to the Iranians?
Why not? After all, it worked before. Hasn't the NK/SK truce held for over 50 years? Past success is a fairly good indicator of future probability.

Regarding your examples: Berlin Crisis- US had approx. 137 nuclear weapons, with long-range delivery capability via B-50's (Nuclear capable extended range B-29's). SU had, at most, 2. No long range delivery capability. Still, the SU tried a blockade, and backed down after other levers were applied (Berlin Airlift and political/economic pressures). Our nuclear advantage did nothing to prevent this crisis.

Sadly, Czechosolvakia can be seen as an internal revolt within an empire being crushed. Many advocate it was done by the SU to reassert itself after their tanks, tactics, and advisors were soundly thrashed when Isreal set the (then existing) mid-east speed record for fighting a war in the 1967 6-day war. The fact that Prague and Czechosolvakia in '68 was still largely intact (unlike Budapest in '56) is a testament not solely to the nuclear issue, but rather the other levers of power politics being applied.

Afghanistan? They felt free to invade and occupy. Look how well that turned out. For the costs of a few dozen advisors, some small arms, and mule packs carrying stingers, we gave to them what we got in Vietnam. With the bonus that it helped accelerate the collapse of the Soviet State.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
As for your examples regarding China, look at it the other way. The US, because we were a nuclear-armed superpower, felt free to go to war in both Vietnam and Korea.
In Korea, we felt obligated by treaty to defend SK from NK (I personally belive Stalin was looking at Korea as a possible "Spainish Civil War" for WW3.). After much back and forth, and some highly questionable acts by senior commanders (Macarthur and Lemay), a return to the status quo ante bellum was found. This has now been maintained for 50 years via MAD.

In Vietnam, we felt free to intervene in a limited sense. Most of the political restrictions on that war were placed there to insure it remained a local conflict, conventionally fought. The presence of Chinese, Soviet, and American soldiers and strategic weaponry held in the periphery went a long way to keeping the war from escalating into a general war that could have provided a dangerous flashpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
When we talk about proxies under MAD, just remember how many regional conflicts there were. Nicaragua and the central american wars. Angola, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Israeli/Arab wars, etc. etc. If MAD with Iran means that we have to watch as Hezbollah is turned loose on the region, I'm not sure it's a win for us even if Iran has no intention of attacking us or our interests directly with their nukes.
Perhaps it's not a "win". In realpolitik, a "win" is not always possible. Hence, you seek the next best thing. An Iran unwilling to attack us, our allies, or our interests with conventional or strategic weapons is a draw that I could live with. Wouldn't be any different from the decades I spent in the shadow of the Soviet Bomb. Proxy wars are as old as man. We will be rid of them when we either go extinct, or the entire species qualifies for sainthood. My point is there will be proxy wars in this region regardless of Iranian nuclear capabilities. Either way, I see low intensity "proxy warfare" a vastly superior option to open warfare with NBC weaponry. Indeed, I think a clearly established policy of MAD will minimize most of these dangers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
But of course, all of this is speculation. I just hope that whatever decision we end up making is the right one. I have confidence in our current foreign policy leadership, but I know that I'm probably in the minority around here.
And may it please remain so. I too hope that we act wisely, and learn from our mistakes. I really think a realpolitik approach ala Truman and Eisenhower is our best option (Containment backed with MAD) as I don't believe we can dissuade Iran from joining the club. I also think starting a war to deny them the capability is an even worse idea than Iraq. I'll also agree that you are likely in the small minority that still trusts Bush and his Foreign Policy team. To them, I fear realpolitik is just a funny word they heard in a lecture somewhere.

Getting a bit bleary-eyed now. Have a nice night patteeu. Always nice debating you. Heck, it gives you a chance to practice your dark arts a bit, even if only against an overwrought academic as opposed to a fellow member of the trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
Adept got me to thinking though. What if Iran does end up getting nukes. It might be a good excuse for the Iraqis to let us build permanent bases on Iran's doorstep as a deterrent ala our forces in Germany and South Korea.
One last note before I go. I don't care for the notion of perm. bases in Iraq, but if Iran does get the bomb, I think I'd have to back establishing the Mideast version of the IGB, with forces corresponding to what we had at Fulda, Bitburg, and Frankfurt and the rest during the 80's. Not just a tripwire force ala the Korean Border, but a serious corps level deployment. Along with a very strong warning, similar to what the Soviets were told about Central Europe.


Thanks to all posters here. It's been a pretty damn interesting discussion. I've enjoyed it, and learned a few things myself. Have a good night everybody.
__________________
No matter how cynical you are, it is impossible to keep up. -Lily Tomlin

I'd rather be a climbing monkey than a falling angel. -Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Adept Havelock; 04-12-2006 at 05:49 AM..
Posts: 14,303
Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.Adept Havelock is not part of the Right 53.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 12:19 AM   #36
Boyceofsummer Boyceofsummer is offline
That Doyle, he's a mean-un
 
Boyceofsummer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Salina, Kansas
Casino cash: $5000
The Nuclear Bunker Buster

animation
The Nuclear Bunker Buster
Robust Nuclear Earth Pentrator

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...animation.html
__________________
ALL YOU GIMPS & RETARDS..........GET THE **** OUT!
Posts: 970
Boyceofsummer Loves all of Deberg's threads.Boyceofsummer Loves all of Deberg's threads.Boyceofsummer Loves all of Deberg's threads.Boyceofsummer Loves all of Deberg's threads.Boyceofsummer Loves all of Deberg's threads.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 06:33 AM   #37
jiveturkey jiveturkey is offline
Captain Kick Ass
 
jiveturkey's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Kansas
Casino cash: $15297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyceofsummer
animation
The Nuclear Bunker Buster
Robust Nuclear Earth Pentrator

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...animation.html
That site mentions a union and scientists leaving me to belive that it's satan's lair. Everything that they state on the animation needs to be cleared by Christian leadership
Posts: 5,774
jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.jiveturkey would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:28 AM.


This is a test for a client's site.
Fort Worth Texas Process Servers
Covering Arlington, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie and surrounding communities.
Tarrant County, Texas and Johnson County, Texas.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.