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.

 

Obama Approves Plans for U.S.-UAE Nuclear Power Deal

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Obama Approves Plans for U.S.-UAE Nuclear Power Deal


www.foxnews.com

President Barack Obama has approved plans for the U.S. to help the United Arab Emirates become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power industry that will fuel the country's growing demand for electricity.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I can not beleive this guy. What gives him the right to just hand over nukes ? Do not most of the people in that part of the world hate us? Why then do you give them the bomb? I am really starting to wonder what Obama is really up too?
He is not in touch with the American people and has ran us into the ground.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
to make oild deals. the more we help them the more oil they give us the less oil they need to fuel their country the more oil they can give us.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Full article here>>
President Barack Obama has approved plans for the U.S. to help the United Arab Emirates become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power industry that will fuel the country's growing demand for electricity.

Obama's official backing of the pact, known as a "123 agreement," is praised by pro-business groups that say U.S. companies are now in the running for major construction work connected to the $41 billion project.

The president's approval comes a few weeks after news organizations, including The Associated Press, obtained a videotape showing a member of the country's royal family torturing a man.

The videotape led to criticism of the emirates' human rights record in the midst of an intense debate over U.S. interrogation methods.

Concerns have also been raised about the emirates' history as a transshipment point for sensitive technology moving into Iran. A small but vocal group of lawmakers have said they'll oppose the deal unless the United Arab Emirates takes stronger action to keep Iran from obtaining materials that could help it develop nuclear weapons.

Despite the objections, it's unlikely Capitol Hill will be a roadblock. Once the State Department sends the agreement to Congress, lawmakers will have 90 days to pass legislation either amending or rejecting the deal. If no bill passes, the agreement goes into effect.

Supporting the emirates' use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes is also intended to be a counterweight to Iran's pursuit of atomic weapons. Obama, as did his predecessor, George W. Bush, sees the emirates' program as a positive example for other countries, especially in the volatile Middle East.

Under the pact, the United Arab Emirates must import, rather than produce, fuel for its nuclear reactors. It also has committed not to enrich uranium or reprocess spent nuclear fuel for plutonium, which is used in nuclear bombs.

The agreement creates the legal framework for the U.S. to transfer sensitive nuclear items to the United Arab Emirates. The pact was signed in January by the departing Bush administration, which left the final decision to Obama.

"By moving this agreement forward, the president is creating the potential for thousands of new jobs for American workers," said Danny Sebright, president of the U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council.

The United Arab Emirates is expected to begin choosing construction companies this fall for reactor work. Firms from Japan, France, Russia are also expected to compete.

"I think the U.A.E. very much wants the U.S. under the tent," Sebright said.

To help guide the agreement through Congress, the United Arab Emirates hired a pair of heavyweight lobbying firms to convince lawmakers the agreement wouldn't end up boosting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The firms, Akin Gump and DLA Piper, also stressed the promise of jobs for American companies hit hard by a sagging economy.

The United Arab Emirates, a federation of seven states, wants nuclear power by 2017. Although the emirates have plenty of oil, they must import 60 percent of the natural gas they use to generate electricity.

The United Arab Emirates no longer wants to depend on outside sources for its energy needs and settled on nuclear power as the most economical and environmentally friendly option.

The videotape shows Sheik Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan beating a man who allegedly shortchanged him on a grain delivery. Issa is the brother of the Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed al Nahyan, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, the country's capital, and deputy supreme commander of the United Arab Emirates' armed forces.

Following an outcry over the video, authorities in the emirates said Issa had been detained and an investigation is under way.

Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., co-chairman of the House Human Rights Commission, said Wednesday he would oppose the 123 agreement because of his concerns over the human rights situation in the emirates.

"I recognize that the U.A.E. is a strategically important country," McGovern said. "But at some point, human rights have to matter."



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by justanothergangster2
to make oild deals. the more we help them the more oil they give us the less oil they need to fuel their country the more oil they can give us.


the less of America left from a nuke, the less oil America needs. UAE will mess this up.... by being found out they support terror...

[edit on 20-5-2009 by RenDMC]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RenDMC
 


exactly, but thats why we want to help them is because of oil. but yeah it wont be long and for right now financial gain is the only thing the white house can think of in ths situation. but with pakistan in turmoil iran possibly building nukes and now we are going to give and support a nuclear program in the UAE. eventually its going to happen i wonder how much uranium we give them is going to go "missing"



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
What's wrong with windmills and solar to produce electricity? Isn't that the way Obama wants to go with our energy plan?


For many environmentalists and the renewable power sector, President Obama's $3.6 trillion blueprint released yesterday would provide a flush of new cash to spur the development of energy-efficient buildings and carbon-free wind and solar farms. It also would add new money to ready U.S. EPA for the global warming challenges to come.

But for some in the nuclear and coal industries, which produce 70 percent of America's electricity, the plan would hamper the progress of the very fuels that switch on most of the nation's lights.


www.nytimes.com...



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Grayelf2009
 


some people fail to grasp the concept that a nuclear a powerplant doesnt mean nuclear weapons.
They are infact entirely different things.

There's a long process from having a nuclear plant to having a nuclear bomb,

dont worry though, this fact is also being deliberatley forgotten in regards to Iran, so its understandable people, mainly Americans fail to appreciate the difference.

After All, Australia has nuclear powerplants.
Im sure a lot of European countries do too, but, no nukes.

Perhaps we are better thinking along the lines of assisting and monitoring to ensure nothing gets leaked or produced, instead of ignoring and forgetting, and letting them do it all by them selves.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Grayelf2009
 


some people fail to grasp the concept that a nuclear a powerplant doesnt mean nuclear weapons.
They are infact entirely different things.

There's a long process from having a nuclear plant to having a nuclear bomb,

dont worry though, this fact is also being deliberatley forgotten in regards to Iran, so its understandable people, mainly Americans fail to appreciate the difference.

After All, Australia has nuclear powerplants.
Im sure a lot of European countries do too, but, no nukes.

Perhaps we are better thinking along the lines of assisting and monitoring to ensure nothing gets leaked or produced, instead of ignoring and forgetting, and letting them do it all by them selves.



which is true and almost anything can be exploited for war purposes, i guess it would be the same as denying them a health care system because of the threat of them making a biological weapon. but the word nuclear and arab in the same sentence is always going to raise red flags. and it doesnt have to be the will of the state any worker or scientist could be a sympathizer or whatever. there is a lot of variables.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by justanothergangster2
 


It is, but only if they want it to.

I mean, Israel ' is Arab ' has nuclear weapons, but we chose to ignore it.
UAE, which is western friendly is going to get nuclear powerplants.
But iran, who has nuclear powerplants is hell bent on getting a nuke and blasting the world.

.. notice how only the nations we want to fight, all of a sudden have a hidden agenda?



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grayelf2009


I can not beleive this guy. What gives him the right to just hand over nukes ? Do not most of the people in that part of the world hate us? Why then do you give them the bomb? I am really starting to wonder what Obama is really up too?


Wow, someone could use a history lesson, and a good bit of common sense.

Nuclear Power =/= Nuclear Bomb.

Also, the UAE have been allies to the West for almost two decades now, and we stand on pretty good terms. Before you go off shouting "oh my god Obama gave them Arabs the bomb!" you might want to stop and read the articles you post on here. Doing a little background research couldn't hurt, either.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


thats how it works and this is how its always going to be.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
here is some research for you; The Electromagnetic revolution of the 20th century was made possible mainly by the contributions of one man, my hero; Nikola Tesla. Had he claimed royalties on the "Alternating Current": he would have become the worlds first TRILLIONAiRE. but, because he was the man, he made the patent available for usage FOR FREE to everyone on the planet, allowing electricity and thus the advances of technology to flow freely throughout the world.

I am all for improvements for tech, but we must MAKE SURE this tech never falls into the wrong hands. Hotheads have destroyed lesser nations and for what?!?

nuclear power is a fickle thing. until we can contain fusion I say whatever



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I'd disagree on nuclear power plant do not mean nukes issue. Non enriched uranium can be used in some types of nuclear power plants, only a few types of nuclear power plants use enriched uranium or plutonium as a source fuel. What people forget is that Iran's president is saying they are building nukes and they are building a huge number of enrichement facilities, there media and some of the media in the west claim it's all for power generation.

How many Australian, French or Canadian power plants used enriched fuel - none last I heard. In the US a few mostly the oldest ones. I'm not sure about the UK and the rest of the EU. The technology to build non enriched nuclear power plants is easier to build and safer hence why so many modern ones use that technology. If I remember correctly enriched fuel units are easier to get the reaction going butharder to control in a runaway situation.

So really I have very little issue with non enriched nuclear power, enriched nuclear power is way more likely to be abused. Of course India used a Candu reactor from the Canadian government (non enriched fuel) and modified it into an enrichement facility for making weapons grade fuel for it's first atomic bomb.

So anyone trying to tell you that a nuclear reactor is not the same as a nuclear weapon is technically correct, but any nation that swears that it has to use enriched fuel for power generation (like Iran) especially since a nuclear weapon uses very high grade enriched fuel (higher than used in a power plant) is selling you a load of something stinky.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


My bad for being in a hurry. your right I didn't read full article...so from now on no more posting,I will just reply.
Im not a good writer or speller anyways. But I can put dinosaurs together, taught myself!



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
yeah wtf is this guy thinking. hand over nukes to just anyone.

didnt clinton do the same thing?


the death of this country will be from actions like these by the democrats.

whatever happened to insuring the american security.


this is treason.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Everyone here is missing the big picture and the hypocricy.

Obama want to give the UAE nuclear power to meet their growing electrical needs because their economy is booming. Ok, great, I don't have a problem with that, but......

Here in the U.S., Obama wants to stop building nuclear plants, he wants to shut down coal power and stop drilling for oil. He wants the U.S. to have windmills and solar panels and have everyone drive a go-cart. He wants to bring down our economy by starving us of electrical power yet he is for building nuclear plants in the UAE. I don't get it.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
You may find this interesting - sounds like it was intentional, but it reads like they're downplaying the Obama Administration:


A document providing confidential details of US civilian nuclear sites was accidentally posted on the internet, the government has admitted.

The 266-page document included the precise location of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons, the Obama administration said.

The Government Printing Office website took down the posting on Tuesday after experts expressed concern.

US officials insisted the information detailed was not a security threat.

The document, which lists itself as "sensitive but unclassified", contains maps and information on hundreds of US civilian nuclear sites.

No military installations are included but the document does cover the nuclear weapons laboratories at Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia.



Article Link: BBC World News



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by exile1981
 


You got me lost here friend. I am not sure what you mean by non enriched uranium ? Is it MOX fuel ? Basically, MOX fuel is a product of enriched uranium. It is expensive and a superior technology than the regular nuclear power plants. Most use low enriched uranium (LEU) or slight enriched uranium (SEU).

I can assure you apart from a few experiments and projects, all nuclear power plants use enriched uranium.

Back on topic, this agreement with UAE was signed last year under Bush era. I think I remember Condie Rice was sent there to finalize the agreement. Obama is only approving it and passing it to Congress.
UAE has agreed not to produce any enriched uranium, it is stated in the OP article linked. They will buy it. They will be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency like any other country with nuclear power plants.
It's controversial only because of human rights issues in UAE. Now if it is not the USA making business with them, it will be another one. Russia or France would be more than happy.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join