Non-Proliferation

Quote :

"The Director General reported that although the Islamic Republic of Iran has cooperated with the Agency on some issues, several critical areas remain unaddressed. 'Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council, nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol. Likewise, Iran has not cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues, detailed fully and completely in the Agency's reports, which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme,' he said."

And on a related note, for all of you here who called me a "scaremonger" or some such nonsense concerning loose nukes:

Nuclear Safety and Security

Quote :

"Dr. ElBaradei also reported that nuclear trafficking is continuing unabated. Up to June of this year the Agency's Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB) received reports of 215 incidents. 'It is vital that all Member States do their utmost to ensure that nuclear and radioactive materials are safe and secure,' he said."

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/bog070909.html

I guess the IAEA and Obama are scaremongers, too.

9/17/2009 8:08:43 PM

I checked your link, and nothing in the section about nuclear safety did it mention Iran. In fact, I would be much more concerned about loose nukes coming from Pakistan than Iran, especially given the general inability of the government to fully eradicate and contain the militants within its borders.

9/17/2009 8:18:59 PM

so far awaaaaayy

9/17/2009 8:45:47 PM

I RAN ALL NIGHT AND DAY

9/17/2009 8:50:11 PM

BOLD STATEMENT

Quote :

"quote box with some bold and sometimes both bold and underline "

BOLD STATEMENT

Quote :

"quote box with some bold and sometimes both bold and underline "

BOLD STATEMENT

Quote :

"quote box with some bold and sometimes both bold and underline "

BOLD STATEMENT

Quote :

"quote box with some bold and sometimes both bold and underline "

BOLD STATEMENT

Quote :

"quote box with some bold and sometimes both bold and underline "

BOLD STATEMENT

Quote :

"quote box with some bold and sometimes both bold and underline "

link

9/17/2009 9:29:48 PM

new rule. no nation with nukes is allowed to criticize another nations nuclear program.

9/17/2009 10:13:13 PM

But but but we're the good guys, right? Pay no mind to the fact that we're the only country to have ever actually used nukes. Twice.

9/18/2009 2:39:02 AM

I'm tired. Can someone inform me how Obama being a scaremonger is part of the discussion?

9/18/2009 2:41:59 AM

^^^starting with israel

9/18/2009 3:56:36 AM

Quote :

"I checked your link, and nothing in the section about nuclear safety did it mention Iran."

TheDarkSaint

You have a firm grasp of the obvious--it was a "related note." Do you even know what proliferation means as it relates to nuclear weapons, materials, technology, and information?

Quote :

"new rule. no nation with nukes is allowed to criticize another nations nuclear program."

mambagrl

Moral equivalence and buffoonery.

Quote :

"But but but we're the good guys, right? Pay no mind to the fact that we're the only country to have ever actually used nukes. Twice."

HockeyRoman

More moral equivalence. As for the United States using nuclear weapons, my response is, And?

And to one ill-informed idiot here in particular, the number one foreign policy issue of the Obama administration:

Quote :

"1. Secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years, and will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material to curb the spread of nuclear weapons."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/index_campaign.php

As for the rest of you, the Flock of Seagulls thing was funny--I LOL-ed. But how about some serious discussion now--this ain't Shit Shat.

9/18/2009 7:02:39 AM

i'm not quite sure what the point of this thread is. who does not thank that nuclear proliferation is an issue to be concerned with? are you suggesting we invade pakistan?

other than your typical "bold, quote, bold quote" what is your point here?

9/18/2009 8:23:53 AM

Before anyone gets ready to march over there

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINWAT01111620090310

Quote :

"Iran lacks weapons-grade highly enriched uranium and has not yet made a decision on whether to produce any, U.S. intelligence officials told Congress on Tuesday."

9/18/2009 9:04:01 AM

^^ What is your point in this thread?

^ Not according to a "secret annex" obtained by AP:

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb

Quote :

"VIENNA — Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press. The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency's leaders share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities. It appears to be the so-called 'secret annex' on Iran's nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA's chief. The document says Iran has 'sufficient information' to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to 'overcome problems' on developing a delivery system."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hXROT9qFqSx-wCTCQk3G6qvfAs_wD9AP714G0

PS: Your report is from March 10, 2009. The report I posted is from 19 hours ago--intelligence changes. I prefer up-to-date information, thanks.

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2009 9:25:36 AM

What is the point of this thread?

9/18/2009 9:43:39 AM

Quote :

"What is the point of this thread? Boone's existence?"

Fixed.

9/18/2009 9:45:15 AM

To question the validity of hooksaw's thread.

9/18/2009 9:46:47 AM

So, I've given your life purpose?

V If I have to tell you how to react to (1) Iran having the bomb and the capability to deliver it and (2) the IAEA's downplaying of this dangerous situation over the years, then you're a lost cause.

VV IRAN HAS THE BOMB, DUMMY! SWEET JESUS!

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2009 9:47:57 AM

what are you suggesting we do to react to this?

9/18/2009 9:52:50 AM

^^ Totally.

So what's the point of this thread, again?

9/18/2009 9:58:57 AM

hi

9/18/2009 10:00:31 AM

From your article

Quote :

"The document says Iran has 'sufficient information' to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to 'overcome problems' on developing a delivery system.""

oh, so they have "sufficient information" now. Thats a smoking gun right there. We should drop bombs on that shit hole tonight.

also

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3778666,00.html

Quote :

"With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran," the statement said. "

PS:

Quote :

"Latest Update: 09.18.09, 00:23 "

9/18/2009 10:01:14 AM

hooksaw,

posting a thread in the soap box is kind of like writing a paper; i know that in your graduate level courses that you are always talking about you probably have to write lots of papers. simply reporting on something isn't going to get you a good grade, and when it's just cut and pasted directly from somewhere that's going to get you a FAIL. you need to add some kind of argument or thesis or point, we all have the news so just regurgitating something is a waste of energy.

9/18/2009 10:02:21 AM

TSB: The Hooksaw News Aggregator

Would you like to discuss nuclear proliferation? We can do that. Please start by expressing clearly your point of view. You like to post news that we are supposed to care about, but then when we, say, infer that you want to attack Iran b/c you post articles about its danger, you backtrack and get all "hey man, i'm just saying something". You said you like to consider yourself an independent thinker, but you sure do like to leave that room for backtracking.

So I for one would like to read a hooksaw manifesto on something.

9/18/2009 4:03:41 PM

Quote :

"The document says Iran has 'sufficient information' to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to 'overcome problems' on developing a delivery system.""

Yes, if you know how to enrich uranium, that pretty much qualifies as the bulk of your "sufficient information" required to build a bomb.

To wit:

1. Take natural Uranium
2. Enrich U235
3. Repeat Step 2 until desired enrichment level reached
4. Assemble into a critical mass

Congratulations, you've developed an atomic weapon! Basically, this isn't anything we don't already know, or haven't known for months. The important question is whether they possess or are producing HEU.

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2009 4:23:05 PM

Quote :

"You have a firm grasp of the obvious--it was a "related note." Do you even know what proliferation means as it relates to nuclear weapons, materials, technology, and information?"

But how do you tie that all into Iran though? The IAEA spoke about "member states", which includes pretty much every nation on the planet. So these "leaks" could be coming from any member nation which has access to nuclear technology. Nowhere in the article you linked to does it mention Iran directly in connection with the leaks.

9/18/2009 7:00:23 PM

9/18/2009 9:31:32 PM

another hooksaw enlightening thread?

let me repost:

Quote :

"hooksaw, posting a thread in the soap box is kind of like writing a paper; i know that in your graduate level courses that you are always talking about you probably have to write lots of papers. simply reporting on something isn't going to get you a good grade, and when it's just cut and pasted directly from somewhere that's going to get you a FAIL. you need to add some kind of argument or thesis or point, we all have the news so just regurgitating something is a waste of energy."

This thread- FAIL

9/19/2009 9:59:03 AM

^ Yeah, except that it's not.

1. The issues presented in the OP are self-evident and should be understood.

2. Yet, since many here are slow, I spoon-fed the relevance of the thread to you.

3. A thread or a post can be whatever I wish it to be. If I go out of bounds a mod can lock a thread or delete a post.

4. The Soap Box forum is meant for. . .

Quote :

"politics, social issues, financials. basically anything serious."

I didn't see your objections to the posts here that have presented none of the above. Why the special treatment for me?

5. If this thread troubles you so, you are free not to post here.

Now, I invite you and your cackling cohorts to kindly piss off.

9/19/2009 10:08:39 AM

still no evident point
still haven't responded to posters

-FAIL

9/19/2009 10:12:56 AM

Quote :

"^ My position is that you don't know shit from Shinola--and I have demonstrated this without exerting any real effort. All you do is swoop into threads and spout shit like, This sucks! Yuck, yuck! Guffaw! Please direct us to all of your enlightening threads. *Crickets*"

9/19/2009 10:21:11 AM

Quote :

"re you suggesting we invade pakistan? "

Quote :

"From your article Quote : "The document says Iran has 'sufficient information' to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to 'overcome problems' on developing a delivery system."" oh, so they have "sufficient information" now. Thats a smoking gun right there. We should drop bombs on that shit hole tonight. also http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3778666,00.html Quote : "With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran," the statement said. " PS: Quote : "Latest Update: 09.18.09, 00:23 ""

Quote :

"Quote : "The document says Iran has 'sufficient information' to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to 'overcome problems' on developing a delivery system."" Yes, if you know how to enrich uranium, that pretty much qualifies as the bulk of your "sufficient information" required to build a bomb. To wit: 1. Take natural Uranium 2. Enrich U235 3. Repeat Step 2 until desired enrichment level reached 4. Assemble into a critical mass Congratulations, you've developed an atomic weapon! Basically, this isn't anything we don't already know, or haven't known for months. The important question is whether they possess or are producing HEU."

Quote :

"But how do you tie that all into Iran though? The IAEA spoke about "member states", which includes pretty much every nation on the planet. So these "leaks" could be coming from any member nation which has access to nuclear technology. Nowhere in the article you linked to does it mention Iran directly in connection with the leaks."

9/19/2009 10:44:07 AM

Crickets

9/19/2009 11:51:38 PM

this thread:

9/20/2009 4:22:36 AM

Is it the case that all the Iran protests did was get a bunch of people locked up in prison for life?

9/20/2009 11:26:09 AM

What should we do about it? Invade Iran? Iran could have the most powerful arsenal of weapons in the world, and we can't (and shouldn't) do anything about it. Let the rest of the world worry about it for once.

9/20/2009 11:36:44 AM

Quote :

"for all of you here who called me a "scaremonger" "

Hacksaw, don't pretend like you want to have a debate. It's clear that you're butt-hurt about something that was said about you in the past and you only posted this in an effort to redeem yourself.

9/20/2009 11:56:15 AM

^ GTFO. You have nothing to offer other than the typical hooksaw's a big poopyhead drivel.

Meanwhile, back in the real world. . .

UK says Iran must take steps to ease nuke fears
Sun Sep 20, 2009

Quote :

"LONDON (Reuters) - Iran must take 'concrete steps' to demonstrate in upcoming talks its nuclear aims are peaceful, Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Sunday. 'The Iranian issue is now a clear one that needs to be addressed,' Miliband told Sky TV. 'It's time for concrete steps from Iran to show that they have only peaceful intentions for their nuclear uranium enrichment program. It is a very important time.'"

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE58J0KI20090920

9/21/2009 2:00:14 AM

we all have the news, please respond to the posts

9/21/2009 9:22:24 AM

Hay guize, ya'll hanging out?

9/21/2009 9:35:32 AM

^^ What, like the Flock of Seagulls' lyrics or the unicorn?

9/21/2009 12:02:06 PM

hooksaw how would you solve the issue of a nuclear iran?

9/21/2009 12:19:42 PM

I'm going to go ahead and say it:

I dont think Iran is enriching uranium for use in bombs


I think the saber rattling you hear from the US and allies is a combination of several things such as

- misplaced fear and need for a boogeyman in the middle east

- Iran actively looking for alternatives to the petrodollar

- The leaders of Iran not being sheep to US demands in the region

9/21/2009 12:21:08 PM

Here's another questions: do all nations have the right to nuclear energy? what about nuclear weapons?

9/21/2009 12:27:37 PM

^^^ By not allowing them to obtain nuclear weapons. I would achieve this by any means necessary.

BTW, my "radical" position is the same as Obama's stated position:

Quote :

"Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would be profoundly dangerous."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyCK2BfI6uI

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power
Jul 02, 2009

Quote :

"President Barack Obama says he is 'not reconciled' to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year. The president told The Associated Press in an interview that U.S. government planning is running in precisely the opposite direction. He said a nuclear-armed Iran would likely trigger an arms race in the already volatile Mideast and said that would be 'a recipe for potential disaster.' Obama also said Thursday that opposing a nuclear weapons capacity for the Persian Gulf nation isn't simply 'a U.S. position.' He said 'the biggest concern is not simply that Iran can threaten us or our allies, like Israel or its neighbors.' The president said that Iran must not be a nuclear power, although he conceded that the challenge ahead is formidable."

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power/

BUT. . .

Last Chance for Iran (The Washington Post)
September 21, 2009

Quote :

"We have little time left to expend on Iranian stalling tactics, if that is indeed what this overture is. As we noted in a report for the Bipartisan Policy Center last week, which was based on an in-depth study of Iran's known enrichment capacities and uranium stockpile by a respected nuclear power expert, we believe Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon by 2010."

http://tinyurl.com/mtpqm3

9/21/2009 1:06:30 PM

so you'd be willing to attack iran at this point? what backlash would you expect?

9/21/2009 1:18:33 PM

Quote :

"do all nations have the right to nuclear energy?"

And, to follow up on this:

If we accept the premise of the IAEA that all nations have a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, does this include potentially sensitive dual-use technologies such as uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing (i.e., plutonium recovery), contingent upon adoption of NPT and the Additional Protocol, with the corresponding safeguards and transparency in place?

In other words, in a perfect world, would Iran have the right to continue its nuclear program if it opened it up to inspectors and ratified the AP? Or would you still be as bellicose?

9/21/2009 1:33:14 PM

The way I see it, if you're willing to make a strike on a potential nuclear power, or the strong ally of a certain nuclear power, you have to be willing to accept the MAD theory.

9/21/2009 1:38:33 PM

^^^ Which part of "by any means necessary" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon didn't you understand? Whatever "backlash" might come would be better thatn the shivering thought of a nuclear-armed Iran.

^^

Quote :

"In other words, in a perfect world, would Iran have the right to continue its nuclear program if it opened it up to inspectors and ratified the AP? "

And if a frog had side pockets, he'd carry a handgun. If, if, if.

9/21/2009 1:42:00 PM

Quote :

"And if a frog had side pockets, he'd carry a handgun. If, if, if."

I am simply attempting to understand your logic by framing it in a simple conditional. IF A, THEN B. Do you accept or reject the condition proposed? Under what circumstances, if any, should Iran be allowed to have enrichment capabilities? What conditions must Iran meet in your opinion to have a civilian nuclear power program?

9/21/2009 1:49:06 PM

^ Wow. Yeah, I'd support Iran having nuclear power for peaceful purposes--with full verification, of course. But as I've clearly posted here, there has been no indication from Iran's past behavior that it would allow the necessary inspections to meet established conditions--the IAEA report (if you had read it) in this thread just confirmed as much.

PS: Once more--for your edification:

Quote :

"'Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council, nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol. Likewise, Iran has not cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues, detailed fully and completely in the Agency's reports, which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme,' he said."

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/bog070909.html

I find it laughable that some of you continually bitch about me not posting this or that. But you don't even bother to read what I post.

Quote :

"Death to Israel!"

--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 1:59:18 PM