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.

 

WAR: Russia backs Iran in nuclear row

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Russian Prime Minister is now convinced that the Iranian nuclear development is not for building nuclear weapons but for peaceful purposes.
Putin has even gone so far as accepting an invitation from Iran for a state tour.
 



msnbc.msn.com
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:39 a.m. ET Feb. 18, 2005
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that he is convinced Iran does not intend to develop nuclear weapons and said he plans to visit Iran
Putin, at a meeting with Iranian National Security Council chief Hasan Rohani, also said Russia would continue its nuclear cooperation with Iran. Moscow has helped Iran build a nuclear reactor, a project that has been heavily criticized by the United States which fears it could be used to help Tehran develop nuclear weapons.

"The latest steps from Iran confirm that Iran does not intend to produce nuclear weapons and we will continue to develop relations in all spheres, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy," Putin said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This now puts the United States in a very difficult situation as the US has been pushing the UN and other nations to put into place injunctions against Iran as a peaceful way to halt Iran from building nukes. The problem I see with this is that if the US has no "peaceful" means of deterring Iran, it will give more impetus to the US government to use military force in order to further the US agenda.




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Ok lets say this reactor in Iran is for "peaceful purposes" (energy production) and forget that they happen to sit on on of the worlds largest oil fields and dont need nuclear energy one bit.

Then why will Iran not switch to a soft water reactor like the EU suggested. The EU even offered to help with the tech of it if Iran agreed. The soft water reactor is just as good for 'energy production' buts its harder to make nuclear weapons then hard water one.

Yet Iran gave the EU and big
on the offer why?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Thanks ShadowXIX you actually stated my thoughts on this.
Iran does not need the reator for the purposes they have given and if the reactor is for engery production, why not go with the EU recommendations? Especially when other countries (US included) offered to go in and build it for them?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Why? Iran is deicated to the cause of totaly anihilation of Israel, and the easiest way to do this is to lob a nuclear tipped ballistic missle right into down town Jerusalem.

Iran wants nuclear weapons, and for once, i agree with a joint USA / israeli strike to stop this.
Look back into histroy, and you will see that there is no love lost between the jews and Russians, who killed just as many as germany did in ww2.

No, its time i think that russia either put up or shut up on this one. Iran has to be stopped at all costs. To do nothing is one step closer to a total middle east melt down.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Didn't they say it was because they believe the worlds need for nuclear fuel will be growing and they want to sell such fuel in a decade or so?

Anyway, Russia is just stating something I already knew. As for why they want nuclear energy, well that is obvious and I have posted why many times. SO they can sell their fossil fuels, duh!

To add: If you really believe that Iran just wants nothing but to destroy Israel, you are just plane mad. Do you really think they would send a nuke just to be nuked back, insane, get a grip on reality.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Kriz_4]

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Kriz_4]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Russia's motives are really hard to figure out, I thinks its safe to say they are looking out for Russia interest above all us. I dont think they will risk War with the US over selling weapons to a place like Iran because this is what pretty much happened in Cuba. The risk far outweighs the weapons sales though they might try a stone cold bluff. But if Russia's interest come under direct threat who knows.


Sometimes I really think Russia might just want this one to get blown up so they have to buy another one from Russia.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4


To add: If you really believe that Iran just wants nothing but to destroy Israel, you are just plane mad. Do you really think they would send a nuke just to be nuked back, insane, get a grip on reality.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Kriz_4]

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Kriz_4]


They might want their own nuke to take Israel's nukes out of the Equation so Israel would be forced to fight a conventional war against bad odds in the numbers game.

They are swimming in a sea of enemies and nukes are thier ace in the hole for deterent. Too bad they always have the Samson option and I think Israel is crazy enough to use it if push came to shove.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Ok lets say this reactor in Iran is for "peaceful purposes" (energy production) and forget that they happen to sit on on of the worlds largest oil fields and dont need nuclear energy one bit.

Then why will Iran not switch to a soft water reactor like the EU suggested. The EU even offered to help with the tech of it if Iran agreed. The soft water reactor is just as good for 'energy production' buts its harder to make nuclear weapons then hard water one.

Yet Iran gave the EU and big
on the offer why?


Here are answers to both your points:

1. Oil wont last forever. Infact, there are a lot of estimates in that it wont last the next 50 years. Who wouldnt be completely idiotic if they didnt investigate alternatives to oil for their domestic power production? Plus if they could satisfy their domestic power production through alternative means, they have more oil to export - which has a twofold effect: it brings in foreign currancy, which isnt linked to Irans internal economy and thus is worth a lot more to them than money they can change, and it also frees up a lot of oil for export, which at current oil prices is a lot more lucrative than selling it internally for power production.

2. A light water reactor doesnt allow them to produce their own fuel for the reactor (the type of reactor they are building allows them to produce more fuel and thus become self reliant) - which leaves Iran reliant on other countries fopr fuel sources. Again, who in their right minds would cripple their country with such a dependancy? With the current stresses in the region, its quite believable that the US could force Irans supplier to cease deliveries, crippling the country.

There has so far been no evidence at all presented to the world that backs up any of the US`s claims - the IAEAs investigations concluded that there was no military project in place. The US is just looking for an excuse for military action, its bleeding obvious thats whats going on.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Russia backs Iran in nuclear row

My thoughts on Putin and Russia (since I can not just copy-n-paste from topic to like topic) are found here:
Bush steps up pressure on Syria: Lays out demands





seekerof



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Well I guess If Putin goes to a tour of Iran that will be very nice indeed, and It will be an outside country leader to find what is going on.

But that will not sit well with the Bush administration that is control by the Israelis intelligent that said that Iran has means to create nuclear weapons and wants to kill them all.

Now is something about Israel that many does not know, Israel have more nuclear power without following any US standards that can take over the entire middle east.

But we are and force to trust the Israelis after all the are not muslins. Right?


By the way they also have the biggest military force in numbers than any other country in the area.

Yes they need help by the US, because they are all by themselves.


[edit on 18-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Don't know exactly what sources you are pulling all your "Israeli" assertions from, but they are flat out wrong, Marg.





seekerof



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
RichardPrice I think part of the EU deal even entailed them giving them fuel for a softwater reactor.

And really if countries will need nuclear reactors in the future for energy then why are most developed countries moving away from nuclear power? These are also countries without massive oil reserves of their own.

Yet they are decommissioning alot of them.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Don't know exactly what sources you are pulling all your "Israeli" assertions from, but they are flat out wrong, Marg.


seekerof


Can you point as what is wrong please.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Marg, all of them for they are nothing but assertions backed by nothing equating or remotely resembling factual, crediable sourcing.

If it your preferred opinion, great. I can willingly accept that, but as I mentioned initially, they are wrong.

edit
, I noticed and noted your edit, as well, Marg.




seekerof

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Marg, all of them for they are nothing but assertions backed by nothing equating or remotely resembling factual, crediable sourcing.

If it your preferred opinion, great. I can willingly accept that, but as I mentioned initially, they are wrong.


seekerof


What part is wrong the military part or the nuclear part.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


By the way they also have the biggest military force in numbers than any other country in the area.

Yes they need help by the US, because they are all by themselves.


[edit on 18-2-2005 by marg6043]


You got to kidding right last time they were attacked they were outnumbered like a 100 to 1. The odds havent gotten any better for them since.

Isreal Military manpower - availability males age 15-49: 1,581,883

Egypt Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 20,340,716 (2004 est.)

and thats just one of the countries that attacked them throw in Jordon,Syria, Iran ect...

They are swimming in a sea of enemies that cant even come close in numbers.


www.cia.gov...



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
RichardPrice I think part of the EU deal even entailed them giving them fuel for a softwater reactor.


As I pointed out in my post, if the reactor relies on fuel which is sourced from an unguaranteed source (IE they arent producing it themselves) then that leaves the reactor open to running out of fuel at the whim of an external influence.

Do you think the EU will continue to supply Iran with fuel if the US demands it to stop? Should Iran risk this at all?



And really if countries will need nuclear reactors in the future for energy then why are most developed countries moving away from nuclear power? These are also countries without massive oil reserves of their own.

Yet they are decommissioning alot of them.


THe ONLY reasons some developed countries are moving away from Nuclear Fuel is twofold - they are uneconomic to run as a profitable private entity (as the UKs method of running plants has shown - BNFL is massively in debt), and the Antinuclear groups have instilled a basic fear of the word 'nuclear' in western populace (have a look at why there were a lot of NMRI machines in hospitals in the 60s and 70s when nuclear power was accepted and 'the next great thing', and they started disappearing in the 1980s and replaced with MRI machines, jsut as the AntiNuclear movement gained speed? The difference in machines? Nothing. The word 'nuclear' in the title scared a lot of people off).

The US has just recently granted licenses for new nuclear power stations. France generates a vast majority of its electricity through nuclear power. China is building new reactors.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Most of Europe and the US is seeing a decline in nuclear power plants.

China on the other hand is a hunger growing monster Dams,Reactors,Oil I doubt anything will meet their future energy needs. They are trying everything under the sun . Its also has a power industry which is still a government sanctioned monopoly that is protected from competition.

I can see the arguement that they are not cost effective nuclear power some $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost $400-$600 per kilowatt, and wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000 per kilowatt.

So whys Iran want them so bad again? So they can make more money selling oil? Hardly seems profitable. The other reason because there is going to be a oil shortage don't seem to fly as most of the world dont seem to worried about that and they arent sitting on oceans of oil.

You can argue that they are worried about having there soft water reactor fuel supply cut off, but agian they sit on huge natural energy reserves. BTW how often do you have to refuel the things?

www.gsreport.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I see now why the US is so protective of Israel and will do anything to keep it protected from countries like Syria and Iran hell it just handle Iraq in a silver plater.

I apologized for the mistakes in my post.

Yes I guess I made a mistake, it possesses the fourth largest army in the world, and Israel has overtaken England to become the worlds 5th largest nuclear power, roughly equivalent to France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.

It is estimated to have 400 - 500 conventional nuclear warheads.
weekly.ahram.org.eg...

It also has micro nuclear devices,

homepage.ntlworld.com...


1. (These new nuclear devices only emit alpha radiation that is invisible to a standard geiger counter). In addition they have the neutron bombs, (that can kill people and leave the buildings intact) and hydrogen bombs. Hydrogen bombs are currently the most fearsome and intimidating weapon on earth, capable of causing over 60000 times the damage of a nuclear bomb like the one used on Nagasaki. The Hydrogen bomb is so intimidating that most nations vow never to produce it, though it is really not much harder than producing regular nukes. When we are talking WMD, this is the big Kahuna.


www.rense.com...

Israel has refused to sign any NPT.

cns.miis.edu...

US gives money for financial aid to Israel every year and is included in our military budget. The last president to sign the this Mr.Bush.
www.washington-report.org...

Foreign Aid: $3 billion, Loan Guarantees (normally): $2 billion (Note: the U.S. Congress has forgiven ALL loans to Israel in the past), private tax deductible donations: $1 billion, Israeli bonds: $500 million, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which guarantees all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis: $3 billion (The Oil funding is camouflaged in the Defense budget) = Total $9.5 billion.

I can go on and on and on, yes I make a mistake but the truth is Israel owns the US.










[edit on 18-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Dig deeper.....


as posted by Marg
Israel has refused to sign any NPT.

Sources are great, Marg, but when using them, one needs to be sure that you understand not just what suits your opinion or argument, but is implied and why.

Israel has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation agreement/treaty for a number of reasons. Did you research a bit more to see why? Maybe this will help you:


The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny that it has a nuclear weapon program...

Israel and weapons of mass destruction

In signing the treaty, they will be admitting that they have them. Signing onto the agreement/treaty, they will also be allowing the IAEA, per the non-proliferation agreement/treaty guidelines, full access and full disclosure of how many and the type and size.

Your problem with this is?

You then mention:


US gives money for financial aid to Israel every year and is included in our military budget. The last president to sign the this Mr.Bush.

And again, further research would have revealed that the U.S. has been doing so since the recognizing of the nation of Israel.



I can go on and on and on, yes I make a mistake but the truth is Israel owns the US.

Owns? Subjectively or objectively?
I'm gathering that you are a bit confused on what "owns/ownz" actually means or implies.
Just one simple logical refute of proving your whole 'Israel OwNz' the U.S.:
If the U.S. is giving foreign aid to a nation, such as Israel, as with 63 other nations, would those other 63 "OwNz the U.S.," as well?

IMHO, looks to me that if the U.S. is giving the foreign aid, it is the U.S. that "owns" those recieving, eh?




seekerof

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join