More Lies about Iran

Lets end this ping-pong game and look at the official documents.

Iran’s Nuclear Programme [Including the Paris Accord]

Page 152:
..........
The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence
building measure and not a legal obligation.

I think that settles the matter.....
[edit on 21-1-2006 by ArchAngel]

I wasnt hiding, I was visiting my grandmother. And I'm no neocon, I call them like I see them, with a smidge of a conservative tilt I will admit. Thats not the heart of this issue, the issue is Irans pursuit of nuclear weapons. And if you look at a few of these links you will see that is clearly what they are doing. This is not conclusive evidence by any means, nor am I claiming it to be, but its kinda fishy if you ask me.

Iran's Heavy-Water Reactor Plans

Need powerpoint for this one.
Iran's Heavy-Water Facility

Interview with the IAEA's Mohamed El Baradei

More info to come as of Feb. 2nd, there will be an IAEA meeting on the subject of Iran. To me, if Iran was in the business of peacful nuclear energy why spend more money diving into heavy water tech? Mind you, you can produce weapons grade materials through light water tech, it is much more difficult. They are not helping their own case by going into such endavours.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Why is it that as soon as you drag out the official documents the Neo-Cons run for cover.

The Author of the original article was right.

Iran does not now have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, and it may be years before they are capable if it were their intent, and the IAEA were not looking in on everything....

One does not have to be a "neo-con" to oppose and debate your views on Iran's nuclear program's - IMO one needs only to possess common sense in not believing that the bumbling efforts by the IAEA are and should not be taken as the final word on Iran's actual nuclear activities.

By the IAEA's own admission no checks on Natanz would have occured except for the opposition groups report of activity at that site even though the IAEA said it was aware of something going on there.

What else has the IAEA failed to check on over the years.

The IAEA's record of discovery is a poor one in light of proliferation in many many countries since the NPT was instituted.

Must I mention their surprise at Iraq's progress discovered after Gulf war I, how about North Korea's progress where no one seems to dispute its nuclear weapons program.

Must I mention their surprise at Irans admitted 18 years of failing to report nuclear activity.

In its June 1 report, the IAEA said Iran had not come clean until April that it bought parts for advanced P-2 centrifuge parts, which can be used to purify uranium in both nuclear power plants and weapons. This week, Iran produced a tape of the Iranian businessmen who imported the parts telling the IAEA of the purchase in January.
......................................."We would note that up until May the official position of the Iranian government was that had not imported P-2 centrifuge parts, and the director general's report also indicates not until May that Iran acknowledged for the first time details about seeking to procure 4,000 magnets with specifications suitable for P-2 use," he said. "So even though you had an Iranian telling the inspector in January that they had tried to buy magnets, that they had bought P-2 magnets, the official position of the Iranian government, the denials of the Iranian government continued all the way through May."

Washington Times

That's the problem they keep getting surprised (IAEA) substantially lowering their credibility in my view, they only seem to do an adaquate job once somebody points them in the right direction only it seems that they have to have their nose's rubbed into the issue before getting a move on.

An example of that is Natanz where issues were pointed out in August 2002 by the NCRI and the IAEA did'nt get an inspection until February 2003
giving Iran plenty of time to tidy things up.

I have read in "Countdown to Crisis" by Ken Timmerman that Iran started on its enrichment program as far back as 1987 not 1995 as most including the IAEA claim.

The suspected site near Tehran at Lavizan Shiyan where the Iranians razed the entire complex to cover-up their activities raises questions about just how forthcoming the Iranians really are with the international community.

Banking on the IAEA to prevent Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program is like having the keystone cops guard Kort knox. Everybody but the ones doing the guarding can see whats going on over their shoulder.

My position has nothing to do with neoconism but rather a healthy dose of pessimism at taking either the Iranians or the IAEA at face value.

I think others here share that feeling.

I think a large portion of the media these days (especially our American media) has overexaggerated and overblown MAANY issues, but i do think they're nailing this on on the head....Iran is a threat to not just the US but to basically the whole world.

Iran's president belongs to the Shia Muslim relgion which belives that their savior, The Mahdi, will come and save the world after a large battle has taken place. Iran's prez has also publicly stated that he believes that he can bring forth the end of the world sooner so that the Mahdi will come quicker.

I dont have a link but there was a report on CNN about this. Either way we should be reaaaaally careful about the situation in iran and i think something does need to happen soon.

Banking on the IAEA to prevent Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program is like having the keystone cops guard Kort knox.

Well spoken, er, I mean written. And yes, many others concur with that analysis.

Indeed, the the IAEA has become a joke to the whole world. But the joke does not stop at the IAEA doorstep. The Security Council, and the U.N. in general have failed repeatedly at their missions.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Why is it that as soon as you drag out the official documents the Neo-Cons run for cover.

The Author of the original article was right.

Iran does not now have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, and it may be years before they are capable if it were their intent, and the IAEA were not looking in on everything....

You have documented the legal status of the agreements between Iran and EU-3- I've seen nothing so far that disproves the idea that recycling material through centrifuges the Iran has might be able to produce weapons-grade HEU.

I've seen nothing to conclusively document that they haven't already produced HEU, although I have seen inconclusive but nevertheless disturbing indications that they perhaps have.

www.wisconsinproject.org...

IAEA inspectors collecting environmental samples at the Natanz site in mid-July found traces of enriched uranium. This report may not be conclusive. The enriched uranium was apparently found only in a single sample,

We can bet our bottom dollar that the upper limit on Iran getting nukes is half a decade. They're gonna have over 1,000 centrifuges running post-rikki-tik, 50,000 not long afterwards, these may have already produced part of the material they need; we can't be sure. They've got several research reactors running, several larger ones on their way to completion.

Depending on their prior progress, the timeframe on their nuclear program achieving a weapon starts in 5 minutes and ends in 5 years, with 1-2 years being the safe bet where I'd be willing to bet large sums of money, barring foreign intervention of some kind.


Last but not least, can the neo-con nonsense; it's hollow. Sling labels all over the place, divide up the discussion between us and them, and settle into a nice partisan trench war- nah not for me, thanks. Neocons be what you wanna be, Liberals be what you wanna be- I think I'll just be an American though.

(edit for external source tags)

[edit on 23-1-2006 by The Vagabond]

Exactly. Iran wont have nukes for years, people, if indeed they are trying to make one.

I want a question answered.....why the hell is every other country allowed to have nukes except Iran? Dont get me wrong here, I dont support Iran attacking people with nukes, im saying that Im not so sure they want to attack people with nukes....

If you are in an argument, and everyone around you had a gun but you didnt....wouldnt you want to have a gun too? Youd feel defenseless. Helpless.

Id feel real helpless if i was Iran right now. They dont have nukes or anything. Yet all the people making threats against them do. Id feel real helpless.

For the record, I wanna point out that the only country ever to use nuclear weapons in warfare is the United States of America.

If Israel/America attacks Iran. Its over. Iranians futures are over. The bombings and sanctions will make sure of that.... just like in Iraq.

The same thing is happening over and over, and we just sit there and cheer them on in their slaughter.

''GO USA!! Go and kill some more! I'm not coming though!''

We criticize those who speak out against the slaughter.

''What? You dont support our troops? You dont support our president? You are not a patriot.''

We are led to believe that the slaughter is the right thing, and is keeping us safe.

''Iran is evil. Iran is trying a new nuclear program, so they must be building nuclear weapons to kill us with. Iran says it wants to wipe Israel off the map, possibly with the nukes they are trying to build. Lets go kill them.''

Havent we heard this somewhere before?

''Iraq is evil. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq wants to use them to attack us, lets go kill them.''

History is repeating itself. Those who dont learn from it, are doomed to repeat it.




[edit on 23-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

Iran will not nuke Isreal unless they use a neutron bomb. They will however use covert means using suitcase small nukes and Hamas, PLO, or Osma and Co. and play innocent. Like it or not we are at war with the Islamofacists. We should have acted when Iran invaded us years ago and Oil would be cheaper. However, this is not what the Oil barrons want folks.

LetTheKnowledgeDrop, you may be right that Iran may not have nukes but for a few years or so. But is it really smart to wait until they have them to act. We dont know what they will do if they do have them. If they will or wont use them, its too big of a gamble to wait until they do have them. That will be their ace up the sleeve. Though the western nations have many, many, many more, and they would be absolutely insane to try and use theirs without getting hit 10 fold over. Its just too big of a risk to wait and see what will happen, its like playing with fire, sooner or later someone will get burned, and if its them or us who gets burned, I choose them.

[edit on 1/23/2006 by ludaChris]

You're missing the point, Luda.

I havent seen substantial proof that Iran is building them in the first place. In fact, the Iranian President has said that they dont want nukes at all. If he is lying, which he may be, then it doesnt neccesarily mean they will attack people with the nukes.

In the second place, why should everyone else be allowed to have them except Iran? Even North Korea is allowed to have nukes, and they have openly threatened the United States. Why not go after them? (Thats coming up next, dont worry)

We all have heard the weapons of mass destruction fable about Iraq, which they admit was a lie. What makes you think your government wouldnt lie again?

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDropI want a question answered.....why the hell is every other country allowed to have nukes except Iran?

Easy- they aren't. There are 4 nations currently known to have nuclear weapons who are not allowed to by the NPT. Three of them never signed the treaty- Israel, India, and Pakistan. The fourth is North Korea, which withdrew.

None of them should have nukes, although by the letter of the law, they probably aren't doing anything illegal. All of these nations should be disarmed, however that is very difficult. How exactly do you make a nation disarm of its nukes when it doesn't want to? I can think of two ways. The first is to "sneak attack" with nukes and destroy theirs. The second is to tick them off so bad that they launch all of their weapons at you. Niether of these is a very agreeable option (although frankly, if any of these nations ever became a threat- for example if there was a situation where Israel may actually turn to the "Sampson Option", then I would certainly advocate that the UN Security Council should authorize a first strike, international law or not.)

Iran is not in the same boat as those nations right now because they don't have the weapons yet, but there is very strong evidence that they are seeking them. Iran can have the nuclear power- there is nothing wrong with that, however because there are very serious security concerns here, it is only reasonable that we set the condition that we must discover and inspect all of their facilities and be able to verify that they are not pursuing a weapons program.

If Iran doesn't want us taking steps to ensure that they can't get nukes, it's a pretty safe bet that they want nukes, and then it only makes since to hit them now, while it is still possible to preempt the threat with precise, low intensity, low collateral damage strikes, and not run the risk of nuclear retaliation.

Exactly. Iran wont have nukes for years, people, if indeed they are trying to make one.

Dont get me wrong here, I dont support Iran attacking people with nukes, im saying that Im not so sure they want to attack people with nukes....

I can appreciate that sentiment, but I believe that there is ample reason to be convinced that they do want to acquire nukes.

They've kept facilities secret without declaring them to the IAEA. After that they failed to submit sufficient detail about some of the facilities under construction. Several of the secret facilities have been operated on a black budget under front companies, and under the supervision of security and intelligence offices. At the same time, Iran has been acquiring North Korean missile technology designed to carry nuclear warheads- their latest project seeks a range of up to 6,000km, and even more ambitious projects are in the pipeline.

Why in the world would Iran want the ability to launch a 500kg payload all the way to Europe?

If you are in an argument, and everyone around you had a gun but you didnt....wouldnt you want to have a gun too? Youd feel defenseless.

This seems to contradict the first part of your post. You obviously see that they have the motive, and I have explained that they are developing the means, but I thought you weren't so sure they want to attack anyone with nukes.

If it is your intent that they just want the nukes to keep them safe, I urge you to consider what it makes them safe from. Nukes protect far more than borders- infact of all the things that nukes can do, protecting borders is where they are at their least effective, because you don't want to use them close to home.
Nukes can protect policy. For example, why don't Russia and China ever stop America from doing anything directly? Why not stop us from going to Iraq or Iran? Why hasn't China invaded Taiwan yet?

Because everyone knows that you can't get into a conventional war with a nuclear power without running an unacceptable risk of a nuclear exchange. This means that Iranian missiles would do more than ensure that nobody can steal their oil; they would make it possible for Iran to manipulate the oil production of their neighbors by conventional force, and nobody who wasn't willing to trade nukes over it would be able to intervene.

Again, consider the range of Iran's missiles. They aren't building missiles that can wipe out a fleet in the gulf or in the Indian Ocean. They aren't building missiles just to reach Israel or a little ways out into the Med. They aren't building cruise-missiles designed to carry small payloads for tactical use- they're developing large ballistic missiles that can reach Europe, which isn't even threatening them with war.

The means Iran has chosen to pursue narrow down the potential motives, all of which were relatively dark to begin with, to only one- blackmail.

Id feel real helpless if i was Iran right now. They dont have nukes or anything. Yet all the people making threats against them do.

Um, only two nations have threatened them with anything worse than sanctions, and solely because they wanted the nuclear program stopped. The cause cannot be an effect of its own effects (at least not in practice- I'm no physicist).

It also stands mentioning that Iran sure isn't acting very helpless. Helpless people don't threaten genocides, don't announce that their missile forces are prepared to destroy western civilization as soon as they recieve the order, etc etc.

For the record, I wanna point out that the only country ever to use nuclear weapons in warfare is the United States of America.

Which has what to do with the price of tea in China, exactly? Just because only one nation has done it means that only one nation ever could or will, so we can relax? The bombs didn't stop working after Nagasaki- they'll still blow if they're used, so proliferation cannot be allowed.

If Israel/America attacks Iran. Its over. Iranians futures are over. The bombings and sanctions will make sure of that.... just like in Iraq.

I share your distaste for the counterproductive and inhumane way in which Iraq was handled from 1991 to present. That's not to say that we shouldn't stop proliferation, that's only to say that we should demand more civilized conduct in war from our government.

I don't see civilian infrastructure as a weapon of war in this day and age, considering that wars can be decided so quickly these days that "the home front"- ie: civilian production, etc, never even has a chance to make a difference, so I don't think it should be targeted. Of course Halliburton doesn't see it that way- they like rebuilding that stuff, especially if they get to name their price.
Maybe we ought to address that problem rather than simply foreswearing the right to secure our security by force when necessary.

The same thing is happening over and over, and we just sit there and cheer them on in their slaughter.

''GO USA!! Go and kill some more! I'm not coming though!''

We? Maybe you've got a mouse in your pocket but I sure wasn't a part of that "we". #1- I, and I'd like to think most Americans, although I haven't got any polling data on the matter- am not amused by death; I believe in force when it is absolutely necessary and when it comes to discussing something that's actually happening or about to happen I have very little tollerance for spectators because it wasn't long ago that I was humping every hill on Camp Pendleton with an M-16 on my shoulder. #2, considering the previous sentence you can guess what I've got to say about that "I'm not coming though" business- I ruined my back getting ready to go over there and I've never been so pissed at myself or anyone else as I was when I realized I was done in the Corps.

We criticize those who speak out against the slaughter.

There goes that "we" again. Maybe you should get some new friends- sounds like you've been hanging out with some real sick people- whoever this "we" is. I criticize those who speak out against self preservation. But I am one of those who speaks out against slaughter (and certain corporate entities for whose benefit our government allows said slaughter).

History is repeating itself. Those who dont learn from it, are doomed to repeat it.

It is repeating itself- you've got Vietnam Syndrome and you'll probably never be in favor of another war as long as you live, no matter how justified the cause, no matter how grave the risk of innaction.

But that's not even the worst part- you remember how Vietnam syndrome ends don't you? The next generation runs out to restore it's national pride by spending like nuts on the military, and sooner or later, they find a war, and they make it last for YEARS when it could have been handled in MONTHS because they've forgotten what it's like and they think they might like it.

Do yourself a favor, and the next generation too: get a handle on what war really is and try to understand it so that you can discern what is necessary and what is not.

Originally posted by ludaChris
I wasnt hiding, I was visiting my grandmother

. And I'm no neocon, I call them like I see them, with a smidge of a conservative tilt I will admit. Thats not the heart of this issue, the issue is Irans pursuit of nuclear weapons.

That was NOT the issue I was addressing, and I quoted your own words so that there would not be confusion.

You said:

And what they are doing is against legally binding accords signed in Paris in 2003.

The statement was false, and I presented the official documents as evidence.

YOU are trying to change the subject of the thread.

The idea the media is promoting that Iran has somehow broken a binding agreement with the IAEA is false.

As far as any evidence has shown Iran is currently in complete compliance with all binding international agreements including the NPT.

As far as any evidence has shown Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons even if all efforts were turned towards it, and the IAEA inspectors were kicked out of the Uranium Enrichment Facilities.

Iran is not an immediate nuclear threat, and they have every reason and every right to develop nuclear energy.

Originally posted by makeitso
.........
Indeed, the the IAEA has become a joke to the whole world. But the joke does not stop at the IAEA doorstep. The Security Council, and the U.N. in general have failed repeatedly at their missions.

What would you propose, and is it less that invasion, and occupation of Iran?

I believe that the IAEA has done what they are able with what they are allowed.

If there is a problem with the current system it is that the NPT signatories are premitted to enrich their own Uranium fuel within their borders.

America wants Iran to have less rights than they were granted when they signed on.

The results will trickle down through all of the other nations in the world.

If one nation is deprived of rights granted by the NPT all the others will assume the same could happen to them.

Would you want complete destruction of the world nuclear controls?

You are hacking at the branches instead of striking the root.

The push should be towards amending the NPT.

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
Exactly. Iran wont have nukes for years, people, if indeed they are trying to make one.

I want a question answered.....why the hell is every other country allowed to have nukes except Iran? Dont get me wrong here, I dont support Iran attacking people with nukes, im saying that Im not so sure they want to attack people with nukes....
........

The answer is that not every other country is allowed to have Nukes.

The Big Five on the Security Council were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, while all other NPT signatories[including Iran] are NOT allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed it so there is no restrictions on their programs.

North Korea was not a signatory until they conditionally signed with the conclusion of the Agreed Framework.

When America violated the AF by ending compensating oil shipments North Korea withdrew from the NPT so they can now develop nukes too....

Originally posted by duncanidaho
Iran will not nuke Isreal unless they use a neutron bomb. They will however use covert means using suitcase small nukes and Hamas, PLO, or Osma and Co. and play innocent. Like it or not we are at war with the Islamofacists. We should have acted when Iran invaded us years ago and Oil would be cheaper. However, this is not what the Oil barrons want folks.

You are forgetting the 'other' nuclear weapon.

The HEMP Bomb.

An EMP over Israel would leave a non-viable state for a significant period.

The Jews would not be able to defend themselves or even support their society, and would be forced to withdraw back to Europe, America, and Russia.

Being that they already have the area surrounded the Muslim majority nations would absorb the land and slowly rebuild.

ONE NUKE and a ballistic missile can result in the destruction of Israel.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

That was NOT the issue I was addressing, and I quoted your own words so that there would not be confusion.

You said:

And what they are doing is against legally binding accords signed in Paris in 2003.

The statement was false, and I presented the official documents as evidence.

YOU are trying to change the subject of the thread.

The idea the media is promoting that Iran has somehow broken a binding agreement with the IAEA is false.

As far as any evidence has shown Iran is currently in complete compliance with all binding international agreements including the NPT.

As far as any evidence has shown Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons even if all efforts were turned towards it, and the IAEA inspectors were kicked out of the Uranium Enrichment Facilities.

Iran is not an immediate nuclear threat, and they have every reason and every right to develop nuclear energy.

That statement about the Paris accords was wrong, but I said that a few pages ago, and I thought that had already been discussed. What about Irans interest in heavy water reactors, kinda sketchy is all I'm saying, and all the info you need on that is in my post at the top of this page. I even posted photos of their heavy water facility, its in powerpoint so if you dont have it you wont bee able to see it. I was never trying to change the subject of the thread, merely addressing a few points that seemed credible at the time. I made that mistake, it wont happen again. But even so that the Paris Accords were voluntary, they are proving their inability to keep their word, which is what you are giving when you sign an agreement if I'm not mistaken. If they wont keep the word they give what makes anyone htink theyll keep their word even when they sign their name to it?

I have never said Iran doesnt have the right to nuclear energy, to the contrary I have always stated that it is their right within the NPT. But when you have their president spouting the crap he does, would you trust that man with a nuke? Not to mention their Revolutionary Council, who are no better, but just sit back and let their little puppet take all the blame while they pull the strings and tell him what to say, problem is, I think Irans President believes what he says, and that is not a country that needs nuclear weapons.

They very well may be years away from being able to make a bomb, but does that change the fact that a bomb is exactly what they are after. There is no practical use in a nuclear energy program to need 50,000+ centrifuges, there is simply no practical need for that many in a peacful program But anyhow, the evidence lies not in what is reported, but Irans actions themselves, playing the same stalling games North Korea was and is still playing. In my mind, it isnt very bright to sit back and take someones word, and wait for Iran to do the same thing that NK did and withdraw from the NPT, then its too late. They are playing the game exactly the way, to a T, that NK has played it, and to me thats a scary thought.

Originally posted by ludaChris
........
They very well may be years away from being able to make a bomb, but does that change the fact that a bomb is exactly what they are after. There is no practical use in a nuclear energy program to need 50,000+ centrifuges, there is simply no practical need for that many in a peacful program But anyhow, the evidence lies not in what is reported, but Irans actions themselves, playing the same stalling games North Korea was and is still playing. In my mind, it isnt very bright to sit back and take someones word, and wait for Iran to do the same thing that NK did and withdraw from the NPT, then its too late. They are playing the game exactly the way, to a T, that NK has played it, and to me thats a scary thought.

From the source pavil provided on page three of this thread:

The Iranian Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Plant at Natanz
.........
To be fully self-sufficient in the production of low enriched uranium for an installed capacity of 6,000 megawatts of electricity, Iran would need an enrichment capacity of about 600,000 separative work units (SWU) each year. The two underground structures at Natanz do not appear large enough to achieve this enrichment capacity, but Iran may be trying to provide a significant fraction of this anticipated capacity over the next two decades. Based on a combined surface area of about 60,000 square meters, these enrichment halls are crudely estimated to be able to hold about 50,000 centrifuges, where each centrifuge requires on average roughly one square meter of floor space. Substantially more centrifuges could be located in the halls, particularly if the centrifuges are packed more tightly or stacked vertically. If each centrifuge has an enrichment capacity of up to 5 SWU per year, the total capacity of this facility when finished is estimated to be up to 250,000 SWU per year.

The facilities will not meet Irans energy goals.

playing the same stalling games North Korea was and is still playing.

What stalling game is NK playing?

WE played the stalling game with our end of the Agreed Framework.

The two light water reactors we promised NK were supposed to be finished already, and we were the ones that broke the agreement when the compensating oil shipments ended.

NK was ready to produce nuclear weapons 10 years ago.

We stalled them with empty promises.

Originally posted by ludaChris
But when you have their president spouting the crap he does, would you trust that man with a nuke? Not to mention their Revolutionary Council, who are no better, but just sit back and let their little puppet take all the blame while they pull the strings and tell him what to say, problem is, I think Irans President believes what he says, and that is not a country that needs nuclear weapons.

I agree, the United States shouldn't have Nuclear Weapons... the scenario just described makes it clear we can't trust the... wait, what? Iran?

Urr. Nevermind then, I am very nationalist Comrade, please do not report me to the Secret Police.

What about Irans interest in heavy water reactors, kinda sketchy is all I'm saying, and all the info you need on that is in my post at the top of this page. I even posted photos of their heavy water facility, its in powerpoint so if you dont have it you wont bee able to see it.

Heavy water reactors are safer, cheaper, and can use natural [Non-Enriched] Uranium.

Whoever told you that Pressurized Light Water Reactors were the best alternative was mistaken.

While its true that PLWRs are the most common the reason is that the American, and Soviet military needed compact reactors that could go long periods without refueling.

The development of PLWR tech for naval use carried over to civilian power plants, and we went with what we knew best.

A very interesting article on the history here:

Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock–in
.....
Not only is the LWR used almost
exclusively in the USA today, but this type, based largely on technology developed in the USA, is being used
for about 80 percent of all the reactors built or under construction in the world today.”1 While an appropriate
decision at the time, it now seems that light water may have been an unfortunate choice. One of the interesting
features of this history is the belief held by many that light water is not the best technology, either
economically or technically. The evidence in support of this belief, while not incontrovertible, is strong
enough to support the contention that light water is not the superior technology. This suggests that other
technologies should still be present in the market.
.......
The average annual load factors of light water and gas graphite
reactors have been approximately equal at 63 percent. Heavy water reactors, however, have had an average
annual load factor of 73 percent.
......
Hugh McIntyre estimated that the heavy water Candu reactors at Pickering generate power at about 75
percent of the cost of the light water reactors of equivalent size at the Zion 2 generating station in Illinois.15
This is consistent with analyses done by Ontario Hydro, which suggest that if Ontario Hydro had a mature light
water reactor program, the costs of nuclear electricity would be 20 to 25 percent higher than with the current
heavy water systems.

There are many reasons for developing Heavy Water Reactors including safety, cost, efficiency, and natural Uranium fuel.

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
You're missing the point, Luda.

I havent seen substantial proof that Iran is building them in the first place. In fact, the Iranian President has said that they dont want nukes at all. If he is lying, which he may be, then it doesnt neccesarily mean they will attack people with the nukes.

In the second place, why should everyone else be allowed to have them except Iran? Even North Korea is allowed to have nukes, and they have openly threatened the United States. Why not go after them? (Thats coming up next, dont worry)

We all have heard the weapons of mass destruction fable about Iraq, which they admit was a lie. What makes you think your government wouldnt lie again?

You have not been looking for any substantial proof then.
Iran did not disclose it's enrichment facility till forced to by a leak from an opposition group.
The IAEA did not find said facility till the information was leaked and they investigated.
The IAEA are only a body that investigates things that are disclosed and have access to. Their intelligence about clandestine operations is vauge at best.

Iran has developed Ballistic Missiles with a range far in excess of it's supposed foe Israel. They have also researched plans for what can only be a nuclear warhead for a missile designed for an airburst.
To give them the benefit of a doubt with the track record Iran has is foolish and naive.

North Korea was not "allowed" to have nukes. It agreed to a plan and still kept right on developing their nuclear ambitions while the world took them at their word. It is the fault of the world community that we did not demand more verification of North Korea's actions. That is what giving the benefit of a doubt does when a nation has nuclear weapon's ambitions.

You would have us do the same with Iran.... give them the chance to develop a nuclear weapon by taking them at their word.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
There are many reasons for developing Heavy Water Reactors including safety, cost, efficiency, and natural Uranium fuel.

You left out one other reason for developing Heavy Water Reactors:

External Source

Heavy water is the key to one type of reactor in which plutonium can be bred from natural uranium. As such, the production of heavy water has always been monitored, and the material is export controlled. In addition, a source of deuterium is essential for the production of tritium and 6LiD, two ingredients of thermonuclear weapons. A nation seeking large quantities of heavy water probably wishes to use the material to moderate a reactor, and may be planning to produce plutonium.

The importance of heavy water to a nuclear proliferator is that it provides one more route to produce plutonium for use in weapons, entirely bypassing uranium enrichment and all of the related technological infrastructure. In addition, heavy-water-moderated reactors can be used to make tritium.

Quack Quack Quack

mod edit to use --ex-- for quote


[edit on 23-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]