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.

 

Iran's nuclear plant connects to electric grid, the country says

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Hopefully they're smart enough to construct a plant capable of withstanding sizable earthquakes...


Earthquakes or Israeli bombs, you mean?




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
This cheap and efficient source of energy that will only make life better for the Iranian people is an affront to my freedom and democracy!!!

We need to send some humanitarian peace missles into there most densely populated urban areas to show them how much we care about them.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AR154
 


The problem with Iran is that they are not transparent. The argument is logical and goes like this...

Iran – “We are not following a nuclear weapons programme”
UN/IAEA/others – “OK, let us have a gander around building X, Y and Z”
Iran “No”

This is the position of the IAEA. Read all about it and cure your insomnia at the same time! iaea.org...

The Iranian nuclear reactors are Russian supplied. I do not think anyone has a problem with Iranian procurement of nuclear reactors nor their peaceful use. The world (represented by the UN, through the IAEA) does have a concern about Iran's secrecy and opacity. This is a legitimate concern.

We all know that Israel (and Pakistan, North Korea,and India for that matter) have developed nuclear weapons, but this is not a legitimate reason for Iran to do so. Two wrongs do not make a right. To bring Israel into the debate is just a red herring. Iran either has a nuclear weapons programme, or not. If they do not, then they need to proactively demonstrate that fact and this is something they have not done.

Although, even the IAEA state that Iran is years away from being able to assemble a bomb “on their own”, the risk remains. Iran has been dependent on the most secretive (and repressive) North Korean regime for much of the ballistic missile technology. For example, the Shahab 5 is based on a North Korean missile and they have helped in developing other Shahab variants. North Korea also has the Bomb (with help from the Pakistani’s). Who is to say Iran is not working with the Korean’s or with disaffected Pakistani’s. Take the material from a “peaceful” civilian reactor as the precursor material and make a Bomb. That’s how Israel did it and every other nation too.

For my part. I would fear a nuclear Iran because a bunch of nutcases run that particular autocracy.

Regards



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
You do know the IAEA has never been allowed to inspect Israel's hundreds of nukes right nor it's nuclear program?


Some theorize America sent them Nukes to circumvent Treaty with Russia....and Russia did the same hiding nukes with someone else. A failsafe if you will.

Since Israel isn't subject to IAEA, why should Iran?

The IAEA is a joke anyways. Just like the UN.

Iran has released a protest to the Chemical Weapons Convention over the US bombing all the chemical weapons bunkers in Iraq, which violated the Treaty and wasn't a "safe disposal" of the chemical munitions. They also claim the US flew some that remained away and never declared what was found, what was flown away, or what was done with it.

Go to the Chemical Weapons Convention Documents page and read the US reply.

Ole Bushy was RIGHT! Iraq did have W-M-D's! They were likely made in America though.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OwenGP185

Originally posted by Americanist
Hopefully they're smart enough to construct a plant capable of withstanding sizable earthquakes...


Did you know the Fukishima plant was constructed by an American company?


edit on 4-9-2011 by OwenGP185 because: I mean designed obviously it wasnt built in the US.

edit on 4-9-2011 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)
I don't expect something built in 1971 to withstand as much as a modern plant should, no matter if we built it or not.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by OwenGP185

Originally posted by Americanist
Hopefully they're smart enough to construct a plant capable of withstanding sizable earthquakes...


Did you know the Fukishima plant was constructed by an American company?


edit on 4-9-2011 by OwenGP185 because: I mean designed obviously it wasnt built in the US.

edit on 4-9-2011 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)
I don't expect something built in 1971 to withstand as much as a modern plant should, no matter if we built it or not.


I was not accusing American engineering of being the problem; the design simply was suited for natural disasters regular in the US such as tornados and not so much earthquakes. The people in charge of setting it up over in Japan should have made the necessary changes so the plant can cope on Japanese land.
edit on 5-9-2011 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


America and Russia have far worse track records in transparency. And i understand that, why as a nation state would you allow, what is effectively a foreign agency sponsored by your enemys to have free reign to spy on some of your nations most advanced technology.

What you should have said was, the problem with Iran is they refuse to do what we tell them to, but now they may or may not have nukes, so were not entirely sure if we can bomb them to a pre-industrial level like we do with every other country who doesnt take our wall street money, high interest and push all these bull# consumer goods nobody really needs on there own people for us in order to harvest money, resources and support for our burgeoning hegemony over the planet????



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by AR154
 


Iran – “We are not following a nuclear weapons programme”
UN/IAEA/others – “OK, let us have a gander around building X, Y and Z”
Iran “No”


I have reread the last report and there is no mention of a site the IAEA wants to visit and is refused access.
Can you clarify please ?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnze
America and Russia have far worse track records in transparency. And i understand that, why as a nation state would you allow, what is effectively a foreign agency sponsored by your enemys to have free reign to spy on some of your nations most advanced technology.


Arms reduction treaties have opened up the nuclear programmes of the US and Russia. The other established nuclear powers are also open for scruitiny.

The IAEA is not spying on Iran per se. It is merely attempting to compel Iranian compliance with the international treaties which they have signed. Besides, Iranian nuclear technology would be backward compared to the established nuclear nations, so spying on Iran’s “advanced technology” would is a pointless observation.


Originally posted by Johnze
What you should have said was, the problem with Iran is they refuse to do what we tell them to, but now they may or may not have nukes so were not entirely sure if we can bomb them to a pre-industrial level like we do with every other country who doesnt take our wall street money, high interest and push all these bull# consumer goods ... (etc)


No, why would I say that? Possible Iranian ambition and the attempts by the world to clarify these aspirations have buugger all to do with Wall Street. What they do have to do with is curtailing the proliferation of hugely destructive weapons, which could de-stabilise a region. Do you really think that Oman or Turkey want the Islamic Republic of Iran sitting on a nuclear stockpile? Of course not. It’s not a US-Iran thing and trying to simplify it as such is ridiculous. Stone the crows, Iran justs need to be open then we'll all be able to see they have nothing to hide.

But hey, back to OP. I’m a supporter of nuclear energy.

Regards



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


www.dailymail.co.uk...

Odd thing to do for a country committed to non proliferation and as far as transparency goes, its a total farce, cant even imagine how much the U.S has increased it uses of D.U ammo and exotic "heavy metal" tippd missles in recent years. But sure, de commission some soviet era ICBM's and everyones happy lol, might even get a Nobel Peace prize lol.

And yes the IAEA are effectively spies. Pretty naive to think there goals are anything other than clandestine.

www.bbc.co.uk...
www.reuters.com...


Also, what evidence do you have to support the notion of "Iranian Ambition" being any sort of legitimate concern for western nations?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnze
 


I think deplete uranium munitions are somewhat off topic, even when talking about nuclear weapons.

The fact remains that Iranian ambitions are of interest to other nations, especially when they concern their own professed adherence to international treaties e.g. the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

Regardless, I have no problem with the Iranians running nuclear power stations - just the lack of transparency means that they could be up to anything. That’s the concern. A concern felt by quite a few nations, not least their Muslim neighbours. This is not necessarily a West versus Iran issue and to paint it as such is crass simplification.

I would take issue that the IAEA personnel are spies, but let’s suppose they are... What exactly would they be spying on if the Iranian nuclear programme is above board and legitimate? Iran has a very immature nuclear industry and it runs on Russian help. Could there be anything worth stealing? Of course not!

Regards



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 




Iran – “We are not following a nuclear weapons programme”
UN/IAEA/others – “OK, let us have a gander around building X, Y and Z”
Iran “No”

I have reread the last report and there is no mention of a site the IAEA wants to visit and is refused access.
Can you clarify please ?


Somehow you missed my post or didn't want to answer my question.

You are implying the Iranian declared sites were not all inspected by the IAEA which is wrong and has been used for years for fearmongering propaganda.

There are concerns about the Iranian civilian nuclear program mainly to the level of distrust between Iran and the West in my opinion. The legitimacy of the concerns are in question.
The IAEA is asking for the implementation of additional safeguards and bascially additional information and of course, following the Security Council's resolution, the suspension of uranium enrichment.
Iran denounces broken promises, deceptive behaviour and the illegality of the resolution.

The West has changed his position on Iran's civilian nuclear program since the Islamic Revolution, it's evident it's 100% political and not real concerns. Except if the West continue applying pressure on Iran, they might well one day recognize they need a deterrent.

The NPT is a bilateral agreement. No nukes in exchange for assistance in setting up a civilian nuclear program. Assistance was not always provided to the term, Iran has not always complied to all the demands. Both sides have failed.
Iran doesn't have to proactively demonstrate they don't have a nuclear program, they simply have to fully implement safeguards. Iran is still sovereign. This means they can build a site for uranium enrichment and declare it only when they open it. It's their right and legal under the NPT. So denouncing that they are building somewhere without declaring is unnecessarily inflammatory for example.

Your words :


Who is to say Iran is not working with the Korean’s or with disaffected Pakistani’s. Take the material from a “peaceful” civilian reactor as the precursor material and make a Bomb. That’s how Israel did it and every other nation too.


All right so you will never accept a civilian nuclear program for political reasons. State it then.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaCurious
 




For me a strike on Iran is all good. How about for you?


For me a retaliatory conventional military strike on Israel is all good. How about for you?


edit on 13-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manouche
I have reread the last report and there is no mention of a site the IAEA wants to visit and is refused access.
Can you clarify please ?


Hope this clarifies...

From the IAEA Board Meeting 12th September, preliminary notes. See
www.iaea.org...


The Agency is increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency continues to receive new information. In the near future, I hope to set out in greater detail the basis for the Agency's concerns so that all Member States are fully informed.


IAEA Board Meeting 24 May 2011 and opens as a PDF www.iaea.org...


23. Iran has not provided further information, as requested by the Agency, in connection with its announcement on 7 February 2010 that it possessed laser enrichment technology, and its announcement on 9 April 2010 regarding the development of third generation centrifuges. Since early 2008, Iran has not responded to Agency requests for access to additional locations related, inter alia, to the manufacturing of centrifuges, and to R&D on uranium enrichment. As a result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s enrichment activities continues to diminish.


and from para 26

...the Agency has requested that Iran make the necessary arrangements to provide the Agency, at the earliest possible date, with access to: the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP); the heavy water stored at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in order to take samples; and any other location in Iran where projects related to heavy water are being carried out. Iran has objected to the Agency’s requests on the basis that they go beyond the Safeguards Agreement and because Iran has already stated that it has not projects. To date, Iran has not provided the requested access.


... and so on

Regards



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Last month, Herman Nackaerts, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Safeguards, was in Arak (heavy water production plant and centrifuge research center), Bushehr (nuclear power plant), Fordo and Natanz (fuel enrichment plant) and Esfahan (uranium conversion facility).

U.N. nuclear watchdog visits Iran sites : report



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join