• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran May Open Military Site to UN Nuclear Watchdog

johnny_rebson said:
We went through the same crap when Saddam reluctantly let inspectors in.

These dictators that run these mideast oil countries can't be trusted. We must always be ready to attack.
Click to expand...

Yea where were those weapons Saddam supposedly had?

Yea and dont forget this:
US Intelligence: Iran Not Making Bomb - 16 US agencies agree that Iran stopped bomb program in 2003
" Iran apparently stopped its bomb-building program in 2003, according to a secret report circulated last year that reflects the position of 16 American intelligence agencies, as well as another national intelligence estimate compiled in 2007."

FCNL: U.S. & Israeli Officials: Iran is NOT Building Nuclear Weapons
"The White House, the Pentagon, U.S. intelligence, and reportedly even Israeli intelligence and leaders of the Israeli military, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) all have reached the same conclusions about Iran's nuclear program:

1) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon-it only has a civilian nuclear program at this point
2) Iran is not building a nuclear weapon
3) Iran has not made the decision of whether or not to build a nuclear weapon in the future"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/w...see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=0
"Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies."


There is little to no evidence that Iran is actively perusing a nuclear weapon many intelligence agencies agree with this, but as long as the American media, some politicians, and Israel keep up this hype this will keep on going on for ever and ever.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
No, just not really relevant. I already covered <=30% enrichment.

Because he does think attacking Iran is a good idea if they don't meet the proposed cap, which he said in the part I quoted...
Click to expand...

You covered <= 20% which accounts for medical research, but evidence of even greater enrichment cannot be justified as civilian use only.

And I think any attack of Iran would involve airstrikes on nuclear facilities only. I would agree that a general invasion is a bad idea, but airstrikes on nuclear facilities (specifically targeting the issue) is quite workable.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Read more @: Iran May Open Military Site to UN Nuclear Watchdog - ABC News[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Iran may allow inspectors to visit this site if the foreign threats calm down. I say we need to lower these threats, allow the IAEA to visit, and both sides come to the table immideatly. War should not be an option. Lets lower the pathetic rhetoric and have a serious talk on this issue. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

The European negotiating team has been trying meaningful discussion for some time, but to no avail. In addition, Iran has been less than cooperative with the IAEA in the past what makes you think that will change anytime soon?

Paul
 
TheDemSocialist said:
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Read more @: Iran May Open Military Site to UN Nuclear Watchdog - ABC News[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Iran may allow inspectors to visit this site if the foreign threats calm down. I say we need to lower these threats, allow the IAEA to visit, and both sides come to the table immideatly. War should not be an option. Lets lower the pathetic rhetoric and have a serious talk on this issue. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

I wonder what these "foreign threats" are that they want lowered. If it's sanctions? Then afterwards, my frienemies, after. There is no reason on earth that a nation purporting to want desperately to get out from under world scrutiny would disallow inspection of any and all facilities.

Buying time, I'd say...
 
johnny_rebson said:
We went through the same crap when Saddam reluctantly let inspectors in.

These dictators that run these mideast oil countries can't be trusted. We must always be ready to attack.
Click to expand...


Not only that, but wars, threats of wars, percieved enemies, really bad adders, OIL, resources, pipelines, refineries, strategic necessity, etc. are all public relations gambits used by our Military/Industrial/Corporate complex to gin up wars and threats of wars to generate that old capitalist ally, really big profits. Separating the factors generating profit from the facts that would inhibit profits is a truly tricky business and that is where your favorite politician is bought and sold. Not only that but also an opportunity for fossil fuel distribution networks to bring more product into the profitable supply lines. War and threats of war is just "good business" the US of A way. Then the public relations specialists work hard to make the soft headed believe that the threats are real and the bogey man is just outside the back door and he gonna get ya'. Some o' his victims are working hard as debate politics typists and just spewing those chunks. Those public relation mind benders are good, eh?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Do you think that the US should be able to force Iran to ratify the Rome statutes? And, if not, then why should Iran be able to force another country to ratify something? Via nuclear blackmail, nonetheless. You really don't see a problem with breaking agreements regarding nuclear weapons, starting a cold war and blackmailing the world in attempt to force another country to ratify a UN treaty against their will and benefit?

Who gave Iran the ability to break UN agreements without consequence and made them the boss of everyone? You did. Why?
Click to expand...

I see a problem with Iran breaking her agreements. I also see a problem with Israel Politicking over Iranian issues. I would not go as far as saying Iran can take the 'moral' high ground here, but, Israel has very little room to talk.

Paul
 
gunner said:
I see a problem with Iran breaking her agreements. I also see a problem with Israel Politicking over Iranian issues. I would not go as far as saying Iran can take the 'moral' high ground here, but, Israel has very little room to talk.

Paul
Click to expand...

Israel is not in violation of the NPT. Iran is. End of story.
 
A ploy. The keep saying they are going to do this and that, to get our hopes up, then they either don't do it or they restrict access. They're using a playbook similar to NKs to stall while they finish building nuclear bombs.
 
gunner said:
Agree. But, what gives a non-signatory to the NPT the right to challenge Iran (the signatory)?
Click to expand...

Really? You don't get it?

1. Israel is a member of the UN.
2. Iran is in violation of an agreement it made with the UN.
3. Israel, as a member state, has the right to object to another member breaking ratified agreements.


Is that difficult? It's looks simple to me.
 
EagleAye said:
You covered <= 20% which accounts for medical research, but evidence of even greater enrichment cannot be justified as civilian use only.
Click to expand...

Well, there are absolutely more uses for HEU than weapons, so it is quite silly and ignorant of you to state otherwise when we know that is not the case. Research reactors can use any percentage of enrichment, and still be used for civilian purposes.

As for Iran enriching past 20%, this is the only story that I could find stating anything above 20%, which isn't proof of anything, really, if you knew anything about uranium enrichment.

And I think any attack of Iran would involve airstrikes on nuclear facilities only. I would agree that a general invasion is a bad idea, but airstrikes on nuclear facilities (specifically targeting the issue) is quite workable.
Click to expand...

Then you are crazy as well.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
There isn't any evidence.



20% U-235 is hardly weapons-grade. It's considered the absolute bare minimum of weapons-usable, on the upper end of LEU. It's being used in their research reactor and, in fact, was being supplied by Argentina since 1994. Interestingly, the US were the ones who provided the reactor to Iran and even supplied them with HEU to operate it between 1987 and 1994!

In 2009 the US proposed that Iran send some LEU to Russia for enrichment to 20% which would be sent to France for manufacture. It was Tehran who rejected this proposal on the grounds of delivery concerns.

So it's comical that you are complaining about this.



There are plenty of reasons to enrich uranium up to and past 20% besides producing weapons (naval reactors, neutron reactors, producing medical isotopes, etc.). You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.



"Some" people "worry[ing]" isn't proof of anything.



Why don't you cite your source?



You are absolutely insane if you think attacking Iran is a good idea.
Click to expand...

No there isn't any reason for Iran to be enriching to 20% let alone past 20%, it isn't the upper end of LEU it is the absolute threshold line between LEU and HEU. If you are attempting to argue that Iran has retained and maintained several hundred kilograms of borderline HEU because they plan on some really serious medical testing you are being ludicrous.

As for weapons design and implosion report:

Nuclear Weapons Design Efforts

As the IAEA notes, these indicators raise growing questions as to whether Iran ever halted its de facto nuclear weapons program in 2003, regardless of what it may have done with its formal structure. One key indicator is its concealment of the facility at Parchin, which may have been designed to carry out explosive—but not fissile—testing of a nuclear weapons design:
As stated in the Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report,41 information provided to the Agency by Member States indicates that Iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments. The information also indicates that this vessel was installed at the Parchin site in 2000. The location at the Parchin site of the vessel was only identified in March 2011.

Further Moves toward an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Breakout Capability: The New IAEA Report on Iran | Center for Strategic and International Studies
Iran dismisses claims of military site clean-up - Telegraph
IAEA due to expose Iranian nuclear weapons design and testing facility | World news | guardian.co.uk

IAEA due to expose Iranian nuclear weapons design and testing facility | World news | guardian.co.uk
 
gunner said:
An agreement they have not signed?

Paul
Click to expand...

Of course! Why is this even a question.

There are a myriad of agreements in the UN ratified by little, some, many or all the members. Each member is not expected to agree to all of the treaties, and each is party to various according to their own sovereign interests. Given the diversity of treaties, signatories and ratifications, it would be self-defeating to require comments and actions be restricted to personal business. As a member of the UN, one is not only entitled but obliged to address violations of agreements, whether or not one is party to any particular treaty.

For example, non-ratified states are free to comment on and address formally any state's breaking of the Rome statutes, to include the ICC. Just because the US has not ratified Rome does not mean that the US is excluded from saying to Kenya (if they were to withdraw): "hey, wait a minute, you agreed and then withdrew after violations. This undermines the UN itself and cannot go without repercussions". Kenya will not withdraw from Rome because it would cost development dollars.

I hope you can see the points of this lengthy explanation with an (actually happening, real life, current) example.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
No there isn't any reason for Iran to be enriching to 20% let alone past 20%, it isn't the upper end of LEU it is the absolute threshold line between LEU and HEU. If you are attempting to argue that Iran has retained and maintained several hundred kilograms of borderline HEU because they plan on some really serious medical testing you are being ludicrous.

As for weapons design and implosion report:

Nuclear Weapons Design Efforts

As the IAEA notes, these indicators raise growing questions as to whether Iran ever halted its de facto nuclear weapons program in 2003, regardless of what it may have done with its formal structure. One key indicator is its concealment of the facility at Parchin, which may have been designed to carry out explosive—but not fissile—testing of a nuclear weapons design:
As stated in the Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report,41 information provided to the Agency by Member States indicates that Iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments. The information also indicates that this vessel was installed at the Parchin site in 2000. The location at the Parchin site of the vessel was only identified in March 2011.

Further Moves toward an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Breakout Capability: The New IAEA Report on Iran | Center for Strategic and International Studies
Iran dismisses claims of military site clean-up - Telegraph
IAEA due to expose Iranian nuclear weapons design and testing facility | World news | guardian.co.uk

IAEA due to expose Iranian nuclear weapons design and testing facility | World news | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

Ah, Parchin, you always seem to come up in these discussions. How cute. I don't feel the need to address the 20% enrichment issue, because this is a line set by the IAEA with which Iran is cooperating.

Now, let's cover this tired old trope about this "large explosives containment vessel" at Parchin. First, there has never been a single claim of any nuclear material being moved on- or off-site at Parchin. Not that you're asserting there was, but let's just throw that out there for context. So because there has never been any observed nuclear material moved on- or off-site, the IAEA really has no justification for requesting an inspection of the site that is highly sensitive and important to Iranian national security. Any approval by the Iranian government to the IAEA for inspection would be as a courtesy, and at the government's full discretion. The IAEA, in other words, has no jurisdiction over Parchin.

Now, let's move on to this "large explosives containment vessel," shall we? Washington Post described this vessel as a "bus-size steel container used by Iran for some of the explosives testing." In fact, it is quite easy to find a picture of what this containment vessel looks like:

kamera.jpg


This was pulled from the Alit website, a producer of detonation nanodiamonds and with whom Dr. Danilenko is related. That is a detonation tank to create nanodiamonds, not a nuclear device. So how does this relate to nuclear weaponry at all? It doesn't!

IAEA said:
44. The Agency has strong indications that the development by Iran of the high explosives initiation system, and its development of the high speed diagnostic configuration used to monitor related experiments, were assisted by the work of a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable in these technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career with this technology in the nuclear weapon programme of the country of his origin. The Agency has reviewed publications by this foreign expert and has met with him. The Agency has been able to verify through three separate routes, including the expert himself, that this person [Dr. Danilenko] was in Iran from about 1996 to about 2002, ostensibly to assist Iran in the development of a facility and techniques for making ultra-dispersed diamonds (“UDDs” or “nanodiamonds”), where he also lectured on explosion physics and its applications.

45. Furthermore, the Agency has received information from two Member States that, after 2003, Iran engaged in experimental research involving a scaled down version of the hemispherical initiation system and high explosive charge referred to in paragraph 43 above, albeit in connection with non-nuclear applications. This work, together with other studies made known to the Agency in which the same initiation system is used in cylindrical geometry [see the above image], could also be relevant to improving and optimizing the multipoint initiation design concept relevant to nuclear applications.

Source
Click to expand...

So the amount of dishonesty and/or ignorance in your post is astonishing. A detonation tank for the creation of UDD's is not an "explosion research vessel" nor is it part of any nuclear weapons testing (and even if you think it is, how the hell would that even work?). Parchin has absolutely no connection to Iran's nuclear program. Therefore, IAEA has no jurisdiction over it and thus it is not relevant to this conversation (or any single one that you will ever have).
 
Last edited:
BTW just wanted to throw this one out there, straight from Sherman's source:

…With regard to the presence of particles with enrichment levels above 20% U-235…Iran’s explanation is not inconsistent with the further assessment made by the Agency since the previous report…The Agency and Iran have exchanged views on ways to avoid a recurrence of transient enrichment levels above the level stated in the DIQ.
Click to expand...

So let's not hear about anomalous readings above 20% being signs of a weapons-grade enrichment program anymore, mmmkay?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
This was pulled from the Alit website, a producer of detonation nanodiamonds and with whom Dr. Danilenko is related. That is a detonation tank to create nanodiamonds, not a nuclear device. So how does this relate to nuclear weaponry at all? It doesn't!

So the amount of dishonesty and/or ignorance in your post is astonishing. A detonation tank for the creation of UDD's is not an "explosion research vessel" nor is it part of any nuclear weapons testing (and even if you think it is, how the hell would that even work?). Parchin has absolutely no connection to Iran's nuclear program. Therefore, IAEA has no jurisdiction over it and thus it is not relevant to this conversation (or any single one that you will ever have).
Click to expand...

Nanodiamonds (UDDs) are used in the following civilian applications: tribology, drug delivery, bioimaging and tissue engineering. Yet Iran has declared Parchin as a military research site. Why are they conducting civilian research at a location they claim is for military purposes?
 
ecofarm said:
Of course! Why is this even a question.

There are a myriad of agreements in the UN ratified by little, some, many or all the members. Each member is not expected to agree to all of the treaties, and each is party to various according to their own sovereign interests. Given the diversity of treaties, signatories and ratifications, it would be self-defeating to require comments and actions be restricted to personal business. As a member of the UN, one is not only entitled but obliged to address violations of agreements, whether or not one is party to any particular treaty.

For example, non-ratified states are free to comment on and address formally any state's breaking of the Rome statutes, to include the ICC. Just because the US has not ratified Rome does not mean that the US is excluded from saying to Kenya (if they were to withdraw): "hey, wait a minute, you agreed and then withdrew after violations. This undermines the UN itself and cannot go without repercussions". Kenya will not withdraw from Rome because it would cost development dollars.

I hope you can see the points of this lengthy explanation with an (actually happening, real life, current) example.
Click to expand...

I thank you Eco for your 'lengthy' reply, honestly. That said, you should have saved yourself the trouble. I did not need an expose of the inner workings at the UN. The point here (which can be applied, if it helps you understand, to your argument) that member states-simply for being a member state, are entitled the position of unfettered protagonist.
There is a massive difference between 'criticism' and what Israel pursues. Iran should, as per NPT dictates, act accordingly but with Israel remaining outside the agreement it hands Iran the rebuke on a plate.
Why is Israel so against signing up to the NPT?

Paul
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Is he gonna give them a new kitchen and a phone?
Click to expand...

i think he gave them the political equivalent of a proctological exam ... and choose not to apply any vaseline


hope bibi enjoyed it
 
justabubba said:
i think he gave them the political equivalent of a proctological exam ... and choose not to apply any vaseline
Click to expand...

Is there anything you don't think of like that?
 
ecofarm said:
Is there anything you don't think of like that?
Click to expand...

would appear the thought of sticking something up bibi's anus got you stimulated


what i do appreciate is Obama making a point to PUBLICLY say to israel, if it wants to assert the NPT as the basis to investigate allegations of iranian nuclear weapons making, then israel must also become an NPT signatory (and make its own arsenal subject to the same UN inspection)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom