It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Iran and Russia Agree on Second Nuclear Reactor at Bushehr

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Russia is currently assisting Iran in building its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr to be operational in 2006, and on Friday Iran and Russia agreed to extend the work for a second nuclear reactor at the site. Details will be worked out in future joint meetings. Russia and Iran have denied western accusations that the site could be used to develop nuclear weapons, stating that it will only be used for peaceful and civil purposes.
 



news.xinhuanet.com
MOSCOW, Dec. 17 (Xinhuanet)- Rumyantsev said that Iran also had the plan to build six or seven other nuclear reactors and was currently holding talks with the European countries and Russia over the program.

Russia has been demanding that Iran return all waste spent fuelback to Russia before the plant operates, but no formal agreement has been reached yet.

During Hosseini's visit in Moscow, the two sides also discusseda possible purchase of Russian passenger jets by Iran.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Russia's involvement in the Iranian nuclear program has got to be worrying some minds in Washington, given that the Bush administration has labeled Iran as a part of the "axis of evil." With recent reports of US wargame simulations on attacking Iran, as well as reports of Russia's Air force being "ready" to attack global terrorist and other targets, it would seem to me that clearly Russia does not have Iran on its list of potential targets. I cannot help but wonder at what may be brewing here if the US administration is serious about pre-emptive or invasive strikes on Iran.

Related News Links:
www.dawn.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Nukes in N. Korea and Iran with help from Russia? Should US Step In?
Russia Finishes Building Iran Nuclear Plant
NEWS: Iran Wants to Expand Nuclear Ties with Russia
Military Drills: Iran, Cuba, China, Russia- Any Connection?




posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
just another target for isreali fighter planes to bomb. trust me, they'll do it too. remember osiraq nuclear plant in iraq? they blew the living piss outta it with 4 planes



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Why do the arabs love naming those things after western leaders?

The one that France gave Saddam was osirak (O-Chirac)
Now the one that Bush is gonna bomb Iran over is called Bushehr (bush-ire).
I know its not really funny, but i'm bored.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Good for them, I have never had any problem with Iran gaining the ability to produce electricity in this way.

I really do not think Isreal will do anything about it, not with the EU and Russia behind the scenes. I think it would do Isreal more harm then good if they reacted with military strikes. For one I should imagine Iran would strike back.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Politically its a shrewd move from the iranians , it clearly puts russia on a more opposing side in americas resourcew...ehr "war on terror".

Isn't it true that while the iranians could return spent fuel to Russia , meanwhile the reactor could also be blanketed to breed additional weapongrade material ASIDE from the input reactorfuel????

Surely the Russians are not unaware of that, but I think they maybe think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to have a nuclear iran to keep the ambitions of the american government in check??????

I think that if the israeli government feel REALLY threatened by the prospect of iranian nukes they might bomb away, regardless what Europe or even the Unites States might think....

But don't expect the targets to be as easily destroyed as the iraqi reactor, the iranians would have had plenty time to learn lessons from this event and might have invested a whole lot in hidden sites, heavily armoured/defensed sites etc.....

Let's see if them modern bunkerbusters pay off....Would be best if Israel does the job, because they aren't really popular in the middle east anyway, so it wouldn't really matter and also iran missiles are thought of capable or reaching israeli soil (and no usa soil), so the motivation for this raid would find more public understanding...?

Would be a bummer for the Russians if the iranians pay for the second reactor "upon completion" and the reactor gets destroyed by bombardment while still in the building process




[edit on 18-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I think Israel still gets most of it's oil from Russia.
If Israel bombs Iran's reactor, Russia may cut them off.
The EU may also place sanctions against Israel or at least remove the trade benefits that Israel currently gets.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Isn't it true that while the iranians could return spent fuel to Russia , meanwhile the reactor could also be blanketed to breed additional weapongrade material ASIDE from the input reactorfuel????


It entirely depends on the type of reactor. A light water reactor is capable of generating electricity while being unable to be used to breed plutonium. A heavy water or pressurised reactor is fully capable of breeding plutonium, but is much more complex to build.

And yes, the Russians would be totally aware of the breeding going on, as the nuclear waste would be different to that coming from a non breeding reactor. Infact the entire operation of the nuclear plant would be different.

Personally I have no issues with Iran owning a nuclear reactor, infact I have no issues with them enriching uranium to be used in such a reactor. Irans oil isnt going to last forever, how are they going to create their own electricity when it runs out? Having them be forced to purchase nuclear fuel from other countries (as the EU plan is currently) is patently stupid, as it forces them to rely on other countries, many of which havent exactly been quiet about their dislike of Iran.

IAEA inspections found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, despite several countries claiming to the contrary. It would be immediately obvious the moment Iran steps up a nuclear weapons program, and they know they have the eye of the world on them at the moment, so its unlikely they will do anything.

Once again, its hatred thats leading to fear.


Sep

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

"If the U.S. were really to attack Iran it would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions. Then terror and violence on a scale that put what we have seen so far in the shade would spread over the Middle East and soon after to the whole world," Mubarak told the German magazine Der Spiegel.


www.signonsandiego.com...

I dont think it is in Israel or America's best intrest to attack Iran



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Personally I have no issues with Iran owning a nuclear reactor, infact I have no issues with them enriching uranium to be used in such a reactor. Irans oil isnt going to last forever, how are they going to create their own electricity when it runs out? Having them be forced to purchase nuclear fuel from other countries (as the EU plan is currently) is patently stupid, as it forces them to rely on other countries, many of which havent exactly been quiet about their dislike of Iran.

Once again, its hatred thats leading to fear.


Ok I've got to ask the simpleton question here when reading this statement.

But first I have to preface it with an obvious preamble.

Iran with its large reserves of crude oil that indeed brings in a large surplus of cash to its economy - a given here.

Knowing its ability to pay for nuclear tech - why else would Russia or rouge elements in Pakistan deal with Iran unless it was progress payments or cash on the barrelhead.

Viewing publically available satellite services that show an impressive expenditure on underground nuclear facilities as well as an extensive network of sites not really required for a peaceful nuclear program.

The initial investment must be in the tens of billions of dollars so far, maybe even into the hundreds billions of dollar range if one adds every little thing up that can be counted or surmised with commonly available information.

Knowing that Iranian domestic consumption and export needs (cash) can be met and exceeded with a shortage predicted by "peak" oil.

All right already here comes the question.

Why not instead just reduce exports by a corresponding dollar amount that matched the expenditure on the nuclear program?

The expenditure of their oil resource at comparatively cheap prices (over the last twenty years averaged) while at the same time paying for their nuclear program in inflated dollars makes no economic sense whatsoever.


You see its a quandry why a country such as Iran would spend its future revenues (possibly quite high) at the rate it is only to produce electricity which has very little export value when compared to the finite resources poured into the capability to do so.

Iran if it held on to a portion of its reserves that have been and are to be spent on its nuclear power program could probably run its economy for much much longer that the west could ever hope to do. They would receive the immediate benefit of a higher price for the commodity the world needs while at the same time holding a large reserve until alternate sources of energy are developed all without causing much of a fuss other than market upset until balance was achieved on pricing.

Why the nuclear gambit that make no economic sense?

One reason and one reason only - Iran indeed wants the power and influence that nuclear arms provide.

This is a dangerous road they are on if that is the aim - they will need to be prepared for the consequences.

This has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with ambitious political desire.





[edit on 18-12-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Personally - I'm glad to see an oil producing nation moving towards non-polluting power sources. ...I would rather every nation in the world stop with the nuclear power plants, but it is a valid interim solution.





.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I think Israel still gets most of it's oil from Russia.
If Israel bombs Iran's reactor, Russia may cut them off.
The EU may also place sanctions against Israel or at least remove the trade benefits that Israel currently gets.


You are right on the penny Russia does supply Israel with oil, because not Arab country will.

But is one problem if is a crisis in which Israel is cut from oil, US has an agreement in wish US will divert our own oil at expenses of the US citizens to fulfill the demands of oil in Israel.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Iran could simply provide its power with natural gas which is a natural clean burning fuel found with oil. They have one of the worlds largest oil supplies and thus they also have natural gas which they are simply flaring off into the atmosphere just like every other Middle Eastern country. This is extremely wasteful. They have no need for nuclear power. They obviously want to make nuclear weapons plain & simple.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
They have no need for nuclear power. They obviously want to make nuclear weapons plain & simple.




Strange as it may seem, most of the world is not prepared to make that assumption.

Check this out:

Russia, Iran Sign Nuclear Deal


.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Well taking in consideration that it has been drilled to us how evil Iran is and a nest for terrorist groups.

I guess nobody will even take in consideration that perhaps Russia has the situation under control.

But wait a moment!!!!!! we can not trust Russia either they are evil in disguised and Putin is the devil.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I'm all for getting rid of fossil fuels, but last time I told Israel not to hurt somebody they didn't listen. The problem with war is that it doesn't care who is right in the beginning, only who is left in the end.
Right wrong or indifferent, some people who have a lot of firepower laying around are telling Iran that they wish Iran would use light-water reactors instead.
I'm as much of a rebel as anybody, but I don't make a habbit of telling heavily armed people that I refuse to cooperate or compromise.

So, I've been over this a lot in my head, and there are plenty of possibilities, but there is one possibility for the future that stands out above the rest.

Israel bombs Iran's reactor. Everybody calls Israel names.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

I'm as much of a rebel as anybody, but I don't make a habbit of telling heavily armed people that I refuse to cooperate or compromise.

So, I've been over this a lot in my head, and there are plenty of possibilities, but there is one possibility for the future that stands out above the rest.

Israel bombs Iran's reactor. Everybody calls Israel names.



...i think we are seeing the result of a diplomatic compromise. True, Jewish fundamentalist have been egged on and manipulated, but the world has had enough. People are worried.

As it stands, Israel gets its oil from Russia - who coincidentally made a deal with Iran to supply reactor fuel plus take back the depleted uranium. ...If Israel stomps on Russia's trade, Russia might just hold back their oil. Israel does have an agreement with the US to take all our oil if they need it, but we don't have any - most of our oil imports now come from Canada, whom we've also stomped on recently.

Point is - everybody's got something on everyone else - it's a precarious balance true, but the power is anything but centralized.

We're looking at diplomatic sqeeze plays here - and IMO - the good guys are winning.



.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Isn't that just great.. here we go again Russia and Iran, what will the US do now. Russia's got the power to checkmate the US in just about every sense, except economically. But even Russia's rusty-old ICBMs can accomodate any problem child threatening another's air space.

They also have the trained ground forces to exceed any western problem child's will to deploy NWO against weaker nations. Sorry to say it but I'm beginning to come around to pondering the NWO way of dealing with nations not willing to kiss their ass.

Dallas



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
As it stands, Israel gets its oil from Russia - who coincidentally made a deal with Iran to supply reactor fuel plus take back the depleted uranium. ...If Israel stomps on Russia's trade, Russia might just hold back their oil. Israel does have an agreement with the US to take all our oil if they need it, but we don't have any - most of our oil imports now come from Canada, whom we've also stomped on recently.

Point is - everybody's got something on everyone else - it's a precarious balance true, but the power is anything but centralized.

We're looking at diplomatic sqeeze plays here - and IMO - the good guys are winning.


I think this is something that those of us who are fond of peace should be really worried about. When somebody tries to curb aggression by shutting down the flow of resources, the reaction is usually for the targeted nation to intiate a war for those resources. Look at how Japan reacted to America's tightening of resources in the late 30s/early 40s.
So here's what I'm afraid of. America doesn't want to back down on this Iran problem, so we need to secure resources independently, ultimately that means conquering Iran. To do that first we need Syria. So what happens looks like this:
IF America decides to go after Iran's reactors or let Israel do it, we'll invade Syria and try to subvert Venezuela (for oil).
Then we'll let Israel hit Iran like it wasn't our idea, and any and all nations which try to gang up on Israel will get invaded by the American forces already in Syria and Iraq. That would be Ugly, capital U.

The way I see it, Iran is gambling on one of three things. They either need 1. America to cut Israel loose and leave them to their own devices. 2. America to restrain Israel from attacking Iran. 3. Israel and America get scared of Russia and backd own.
If those dont happen, and instead Israel/America try to attack Iran's nuclear program, everything from Northern Egypt to Iran is going to Afghanistan is going to be in American/Israeli hands (and that would actually be the good news. the bad news would be that the Russians and Chinese would have VERY itchy trigger fingers and things could get even further out of hand.)

Let's not forget that even Bill Clinton almost managed to get America into WWIII over Kosovo. There were elements in Russia that wanted war with NATO over that, and the Brits had to stop American forces from initiating hostilities with the Russians in the former Yugoslavia!
The moral of the story is this: miscalculations are made often times in foreign policy, and sometimes we're all lucky to survive. It's dangerous for both Iran and America to be driving so close to the line on this issue. In a sane world, the talks between Iran and America on this issue would sound something like this (I know i'm in la-la land with this, but everybody needs a dream):


America: We don't want another nuclear standoff, and we don't want to fight. What can we offer you to change your mind about heavy water reactors.

Iran: We don't want nukes pointed at us and we don't want to fight either. Sign a non-aggression pact with us, support a UN resolution to disarm all nuclear powers not on the UN Security Council, especially Israel, and sell us missile defenses, and help us build light water reactors.

America: That sounds really expensive.

Iran: Invading us would cost over 100 billion dollars, just like Iraq.

America: Good point, we have a deal.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
But Vagabond - Bush already brokered a deal to keep Iran in check. ...The deal Russia and Iran signed today specifies that the spent fuel (depleted uranium) goes back to Russia. IMO - this is what Bush and Putin hammered out last week, and likely what Russia gets in return is US support to join the WTO.

Russia, Iran Sign Nuclear Deal



.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Forgive me, I'm under the impression that I've missed a detail at some point. I was under the impression that the heavy water reactors were different not because they produced DU but because they could "breed" plutonium other than from the fuel itself. Did that turn out not to be true, or was did i come to that belief by misunderstanding altogehter?


It would be great if Bush and Putin had been through all the ins and outs of it and had it solved. It'd also be a bit of a surprise to me, to be honest. If my understanding of those two men is correct (and I'm not always correct) they are a match made in hell. Putin wants Soviet Russia back and Bush to engage in military occupations to push the PNAC objectives. It's like these two men were just born to fight one another as far as I can see.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join