President Mohammad Khatami assures Iran isn't tryng to build nukes.

Vesayen · June 19, 2003, 19:18

/wipes brow

That was close.

I had my suspicians about an oil-rich nation's desire for nuclear power plants. Everything is cleared up now.

We can all sleep better knowing the world is safe from Iranian nukes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89791,00.html

SlowwHand · June 19, 2003, 19:27

Ain't it the truth? He says it, I believe it.

Vesayen · June 19, 2003, 19:28

His credibility is equal to bushes atm lol.

Nubclear · June 19, 2003, 19:32

He isn't trying to build nukes because.........

ALL OF IRAQS WOMD WERE SHIPPED TO IRAN AND SYRIA!!!!!

WE HAVE TO INVADE THEM NOW BEFORE THE NUKE THE WORLD 100 TIMES OVER WITH ALL THEIR NUKES AND 100000 POUNDS OF VX!!!!

WERE ALL IN DANGER!!! INVADE IRAN! INVADE SYRIA!!!

Ecthy · June 19, 2003, 19:33

At least HE was elected with large majority

Vesayen · June 19, 2003, 19:36

OUUUUUUUCH! lol!

JCG · June 19, 2003, 22:09

So again, who is Iran going to nuke anyway? Israel? Mainland USA? Please....

Joseph · June 19, 2003, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
/wipes brow

That was close.

I had my suspicians about an oil-rich nation's desire for nuclear power plants. Everything is cleared up now.

We can all sleep better knowing the world is safe from Iranian nukes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89791,00.html

Translation is I already have them. End of story

Sava · June 20, 2003, 00:14

A nuclear facility is big. A nuclear weapons program requires lots of resources... and is also big. If one exist, it will be easy to find. The Germans (WW2), with less technology, less experience, and a much more difficult adversary, were able to find Los Alamos. Surely America and it's intelligence community can find the Iran program and expose it to the public.

Iran's only so big, and I'm sure there are about 10,000 spy satelites looking down on the country. The CIA, no doubt, had the capability to identify the Soviet's military facilities during the Cold War. If a program exist, the evidence is there to see. That's how I know the claims against Iraq were false. During the Cuban missile crisis, we had pictures of the missiles. We knew what was where. But now, after 40 years of technological development, I'm supposed to believe that Saddam and now Iran are so skilled and advanced that they can hide massive WMD programs from us? Give me a break.

Show me a satelite photo of some mullahs playing horsey with a nuclear device. If not, then don't waste my f*cking time or tax dollars on some stupid war.

Az · June 20, 2003, 00:33

actually, you can't miss those cooling towers on the sattellite pictures.

BUT IF HE SAYS THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO, I AM SURE HE DOESN'T.

Sava · June 20, 2003, 00:59

Then, I think we should just knock it out like Israel did against Iraq...

Az · June 20, 2003, 01:29

The problem is that there are several facilities being built.

The entire Compound:

And there are plenty more.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...n/facility.htm

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 03:07

The containments are on the scale for commercial reactors - you don't need near that much for fuel enrichment to make Plutonium. Ask the DPRK.

Economically, it makes sense, even if you have a shitload of oil, to go nuke if you don't have a US-style regulatory scheme. How safe they'd be to live next to might be another story, depending on cutting corners, but a fully fueled nuke plant has an operating cost of about a tenth of an oil or gas fired plant over the lifetime of the nuclear fuel supply, and without the pollution at both the crude oil refining and the power production stages.

Smart people would conclude that nuke reactors for electricity are a better solution than wasting the oil asset. It's worth more sold, or preserved in the ground for future sale, than the cost of the electricity.

Az · June 20, 2003, 03:16

And the Shihabs are for the advanced Iranian Satellite program catering for their enormous telecom sector.

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 03:24

Everyone likes missiles. Are you telling me you guys don't have the hardware to make Tehran, Qom, Isfahan, Shiraz, Bandar Abbas, Kharg Island, etc. glow in the dark?

That doesn't change the fact that those nuke containments in the photos you're showing are for 900-1200 megawatt class reactors, which is a hundred or more times what you need (and actually more of a pain in the ass) for weapons fuel production.

Az · June 20, 2003, 03:27

I don't know what are you talking about.

*whistles*

Dis · June 20, 2003, 03:38

this is the best news I've heard all week

now we can concentrate our efforts on North Korea

Eli · June 20, 2003, 03:42

@ Az.

Arabs(Muslims)+Nukes = Eli not happy.

Someone should bomb them ASAP.

Dis · June 20, 2003, 03:46

It's a comin'

anyone hear what Bush said recently?

Iran is going to be next.

Yippee more war!

Az · June 20, 2003, 04:14

Gawd I like satellite imagery.

This IKONOS sat is something else.

Inverse Icarus · June 20, 2003, 04:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
It's a comin'

anyone hear what Bush said recently?

Iran is going to be next.

Yippee more war!

anyone darker than butterscotch is goin down.

Proteus_MST · June 20, 2003, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
It's a comin'

anyone hear what Bush said recently?

Iran is going to be next.

Yippee more war!

Yep, I think you are right.

And if they really don´t have any nukes it will make things much easier

Dr. A. Cula · June 20, 2003, 07:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
But now, after 40 years of technological development, I'm supposed to believe that Saddam and now Iran are so skilled and advanced that they can hide massive WMD programs from us? Give me a break.

Everything is done in underground facilities and the pieces are being shipped around in big packages strapped under a camel's belly. From up there, a spy satellite only shows a bunch of arabs joyriding through the desert on camel back.

Ecthy · June 20, 2003, 07:24

according to the Bush doctrine (or call it new nationa lsecurity doctrine if you prefer a less anti-style term), Iran wouldn't have to possess nuclear weapons to justify an attack. preemption means the prevention of a situation that demands prevention.

Al'Kimiya · June 20, 2003, 07:32

Azazel: now that's the kind of graphics I would like for a civ game!

Ecthy · June 20, 2003, 07:35

yep, nice images... it is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, though