| Next: Spilled Coffee On My Laptop Keyboard |
| Author |
Message |
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8181
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: Iran's right to enrich Uranium |
|
|
US Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator John Ker...support
| Quote: |
Kerry, the former Democratic presidential nominee believes that red lines drawn by the former US administration of George W. Bush should be revised based on a realistic definition of "a nuclear state" and security threats for Middle East and Israel.
He added that Israel - Middle East's sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal - has also complicated the situation by choosing different definitions and strategies to secure its own interests.
Pointing to Israel's often-repeated threats of attacks against Iran, the US Senator warned Israel that its ambition to delay Iran's program aggressively may cause a real danger without any desirable result. |
As article 4 of the NPT says
| Quote: |
| Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. |
and Iran being a signatory to this treaty,
has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No story here, Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes was never in dispute it's using that uranium to make a weapon that is the problem. Based on the things they have been buying and some long range missile tests I would say they are on their way to getting their collective butt kicked if the nutter remains in charge which sadly looks as though that might be the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| No story here, Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes was never in dispute it's using that uranium to make a weapon that is the problem. Based on the things they have been buying and some long range missile tests I would say they are on their way to getting their collective butt kicked if the nutter remains in charge which sadly looks as though that might be the case. |
Germany, being prohibited from building military equipment after WWI too promised it was buying steel, material, and technology for peaceful purposes too and we all know how that turned out now don't we.
It takes relatively little enriched uranium to run a reactor. The equipment the Iranians have been acquiring would allow them to produce many more times what is needed for peaceful purposes. The particular centrifuges they have purchased are most useful for producing highly enriched uranium which is only useful for making mushroom clouds. And last I checked long range ballistic missiles are unnecessary for a civilian nuclear industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:36 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
i would sooner see 'no' country have nuclear weapons
but if one country has them then i see the reasons for all country's to have them
fair play, level playing field and all that
but the country that seems to shout the loudest is the 'only' country to have used these destructive weapons in anger … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pasquanel
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 507
Location: Maine
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:45 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Gezzer wrote: |
i would sooner see 'no' country have nuclear weapons
but if one country has them then i see the reasons for all country's to have them
fair play, level playing field and all that
but the country that seems to shout the loudest is the 'only' country to have used these destructive weapons in anger … |
Geezer, thats just the kind of thinking that has reduced the UK to it's present state!
We would all be better off if nuclear weapons didn't exist but they do and the genie is never going back in the bottle.
This isn't a cricket match man and to suggest a fair and level playing field is lunacy! What is it you want? Perhaps we could exchange a few volleys, kind of an atomic game of battleship! Good grief man its not about "fair" but good and evil you know right and wrong! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:23 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Gezzer wrote: |
i would sooner see 'no' country have nuclear weapons
but if one country has them then i see the reasons for all country's to have them
fair play, level playing field and all that
but the country that seems to shout the loudest is the 'only' country to have used these destructive weapons in anger … |
Fair and level playing field?! That's insane!! No one in their right mind wants a "level playing field" when it comes to war!! I refer you to Sgt Schultz's signature:
| Quote: |
| If you find yourself in a fair fight you did not plan properly. |
On top of that, let's think about this logically. You say you want no nuclear weapons. I assume that's because you don't want to see them used. If so, why would you ever advocate giving every country nukes? All you do is increase the probability that either a nut in charge will use them, or that an accident would occur.
It seems to me that anyone who doesn't want nukes would be in favor of non-proliferation, not opposed to it.
Oh, and about the flame bait in the last line - are you seriously still stuck on acts from the middle of a World War 64 years ago, a war with a country that attacked us first, and who ignored our warnings?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gezzer
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Posts: 666
Location: Buckinghamshire England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
so 64 years changes facts, i don't think so
you are still the 'only' country to have used these weapons in anger regardless of reasons
the smaller country's are going to get, produce and make nuclear weapons
so they will not feel threatened by the big boys who already have them
and with that comes a greater threat that they will be used
we either all get rid of them or everybody will have them that's the sad state of affairs as it stands and there is nothing anybody can do about it … |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
General