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.

 

Enriching uranium illegal for Iran?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Is it technicly illegal for Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, ie. nuclear reactor, on their own soil? If so, can someone give me a link to that particular law.

Yes, I know some of you think that Iran wants nukes, even I do, but I'd appreciate it if we'd leave that for some other threads. Thanks




posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Iran, and all other nations that are signatories to the NPT are allowed nuclear tech for peaceful purposes.

The only non-signatories are Israel, Pakistan, India, Cuba, and North Korea recently withdrew when America ended compensating oil shipments violating the Agreed framework.



Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]


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.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
A rather important passage to go along with article IV



Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.


NPT


Correct me if I'm wrong here -

Iran has admitted receiving bomb designs from the AQ Khan network directly violating article II and indirectly violating the more well known article IV.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
The shipments of oil ended when NK openly admitted to resuming their nuclear program in 2002. NK violated their agreement by resuming that activity. Therefore the US was under no obligation to send oil shipments to NK anymore.



Washington considers that Pyongyang nullified the pact, after confessing to a US envoy last month that it was trying to build nuclear weapons with enriched uranium.


North Korea has said they will only drop their nuclear program if the US would sign a non-aggression pact that is legally binding with the North Korea. Which we all know to this point hasnt happened, this article is a little over 3 years old, but provides more information into the situation we face today.

Oil Shipments to NK Cease



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
The shipments of oil ended when NK openly admitted to resuming their nuclear program in 2002. NK violated their agreement by resuming that activity. Therefore the US was under no obligation to send oil shipments to NK anymore.



Washington considers that Pyongyang nullified the pact, after confessing to a US envoy last month that it was trying to build nuclear weapons with enriched uranium.


North Korea has said they will only drop their nuclear program if the US would sign a non-aggression pact that is legally binding with the North Korea. Which we all know to this point hasnt happened, this article is a little over 3 years old, but provides more information into the situation we face today.

Oil Shipments to NK Cease


I'm not very familiar with the whole NK nuke issue besides the usual basics but if this non-aggression pact will stop US from ever attacking NK unless it provokes them wouldn't it be better for us all if the US gave in to this requirement? And what would it do if the US does the same with Iran? Would Iran perhaps re-consider and drop its alleged nuclear program?

What is stopping the US from signing these pacts if it can stop future wars from ever occurring?

[edit on 14-1-2006 by shire19]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I'm not very familiar with the whole NK nuke issue besides the usual basics but if this non-aggression pact will stop US from ever attacking NK unless it provokes them wouldn't it be better for us all if the US gave in to this requirement? And what would it do if the US does the same with Iran? Would Iran perhaps re-consider and drop its alleged nuclear program?
And the US government gave North Korea the capability to create nuclear weapons in the first place, and even funded it.


Originally posted by shire19What is stopping the US from signing these pacts if it can stop future wars from ever occurring?

War is very profitable.

mod edit to remove quote of previous post

[edit on 14-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I dont think enriching uranium should be ILLEGIAL for anyone.
BUT

If a country openly calls for the DEATH and DESTRUCTION of another country, then isnt it FOOLISH in allowing them the OPPORTUNITY?

Yes, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons.
But unfortuantely Iran showed its immaturity and hot headedness by declaring death to Israel and Death to America.

Sure Iran might not be pursuing Nuclear weapons, but unfortunately for them, they did something VERY stupid, and this has caused ENOUGH doubt in my opinion to DENY them the right.

I mean think about it,

If Australia openly declared DEATH and DESTRUCTION to New Zealand. Told the world they should be wiped of the map, is it WISE to let them start looking into nuclear technology, which can DIRECTLY lead to nuclear weapons?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

The shipments of oil ended when NK openly admitted to resuming their nuclear program in 2002. NK violated their agreement by resuming that activity. Therefore the US was under no obligation to send oil shipments to NK anymore.


North Korea denies this is what happened, and there is no evidence in contradiction.

As was pointed out to James Kelly many times, the North Koreans said in the proposal that they had a RIGHT to Uranium enrichment, not that they had a program.

What you have here is the word of an incoherant old man, not a treaty violation.

America clearly violated the treaty by ending the oil shipments.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
It somehow seem's credulous to me that Iran want's to enrich Uranium for civilian use as opposed for a bomb. They should come out and withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty like Israel and openly state their aims. Better than attempting to dupe the West (who's falling for this peaceful nuclear research ploy? exactly- nobody. This secretive atittude of kicking out inspectors is worst than the actual intention).



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I dont think enriching uranium should be ILLEGIAL for anyone.
BUT

If a country openly calls for the DEATH and DESTRUCTION of another country, then isnt it FOOLISH in allowing them the OPPORTUNITY?

Yes, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons.
But unfortuantely Iran showed its immaturity and hot headedness by declaring death to Israel and Death to America.

Sure Iran might not be pursuing Nuclear weapons, but unfortunately for them, they did something VERY stupid, and this has caused ENOUGH doubt in my opinion to DENY them the right.

I mean think about it,

If Australia openly declared DEATH and DESTRUCTION to New Zealand. Told the world they should be wiped of the map, is it WISE to let them start looking into nuclear technology, which can DIRECTLY lead to nuclear weapons?



I think this is the crux of the issue. Irans' intentions, if they intend to make nuclear weapons or not have now been cast totally in doubt by the words of their president. Now this doubt exists, and the continuing attitude of Iran (as presented to the world by the actions of those that interface Iran to the rest of the world) makes any country suspicious of Irans' motives and intentions.

Unless they (Iran) sort out their own diplomatic act, no matter what they say, no country will believe them. If this does not occur, then things may get very bad.





[edit on 15-1-2006 by Keeval]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join