• 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 Moves Closer to Nuke Weapon Capacity

T

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iran Moves Closer to Nuke Weapon Capacity - CBS News

Iran moved closer to being able to produce nuclear warheads Monday with formal notification that it will enrich uranium to higher levels, even while insisting that the move was meant only to provide fuel for its research reactor.

Iranian envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told The Associated Press that he informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of the decision to enrich at least some of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to 20 percent, considered the threshold value for highly enriched uranium.

Soltanieh, who represents Iran at the Vienna-based IAEA, also said that the U.N. agency's inspectors now overseeing enrichment to low levels would be able to stay on site to fully monitor the process. And he blamed world powers for Iran's decision, asserting that it was their fault that a plan that foresaw Russian and French involvement in supplying the research reactor had failed.

"Until now, we have not received any response to our positive logical and technical proposal," he said. "We cannot leave hospitals and patients desperately waiting for radio isotopes" being produced at the Tehran reactor and used in cancer treatment, he added.

Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to take Iranian low enriched uranium, further enriching it and return it in the form of fuel rods for the reactor - and in broader terms for turning down other overtures meant to diminish concerns about its nuclear agenda.

At a news conference with French Defense Minister Herve Morin, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised President Barack Obama's attempts to engage the Islamic Republic diplomatically and chided Tehran for not reciprocating.

"No U.S. president has reached out more sincerely, and frankly taken more political risk, in an effort to try to create an opening for engagement for Iran," he said. "All these initiatives have been rejected."

Israel, Iran's most implacable foe, said Iran's enrichment plans are "additional proof of the fact that Iran is ridiculing the entire world."

"The right response is to impose decisive and permanent sanctions on Iran," said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had already announced Sunday that his country would significantly enrich at least some of the country's stockpile of uranium. Still, Monday's notification to the IAEA was important as formal confirmation of the plan, particularly because of the rash of conflicting signals sent in recent months by Iranian officials on the issue.

Although material for the fissile core of a nuclear warhead must be enriched to a level of 90 percent or more, just getting its stockpile to the 20 percent mark would be a major step for the country's nuclear program. While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step - moving from 20 to 90 percent - would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.

Achieving the 20-percent level "would be going most of the rest of the way to weapon-grade uranium," said David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspected proliferators.

While Iran would be able to enrich up to 20 percent, it is not considered technically sophisticated enough to turn that material into fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. A senior official from a member nation of the 35-country IAEA board said that issue cast Iran's stated reason for higher enrichment into doubt.

Legal constraints could tie Iran's hands as well. The senior official said he believed Tehran was obligated to notify the agency 60 days in advance of starting to enrich to higher levels.

The Iranian move came just days after Ahmadinejad appeared to move close to endorsing the original deal, which foresaw Tehran exporting the bulk of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment and then conversion for fuel rods for the research reactor.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Some comments:

1. To be played so poorly by such a punk.

2. It's like we have NO PRESIDENT at all.

3. Gates is right, no one has ever reached out further, tried harder, got rejected more rudely.

4. Sanctions are non starters so long as Putin and Hu won't cooperate.

5. Where's our reward for all the reaching out?

6. When's Obama gonna engage that personal diplomacy he used to talk so much about?

7. How could anyone have ever supported all this Neville Chamberlain nonsense?

8. Outside of his ESCALATION of Afghanistan, Obama has NO foreign policy.

9. The reaching out has been all reached out, what more can he extend?

10. International climate accords are kaput.

11. The no-nukes poetry is pretty but not practicable.

12. Trade relations with China chill.

13. What else is there, what IS his foreign policy?

14. When it comes to Iran he is utterly answerless.

15. He's actually emboldened Ahmedinejad, with all the bowing and apologizing, affirming Iran's right to nuclear power, not standing up boldly for the people who are protesting and dying on the streets of Tehran, stating publicly over and over his belief that reaching out and meeting with the leaders of Iran could effect change as if the regime weren't rogue but reasonable and responsible in return.

16. He's been the very embodiment of effete.

17. He likewise has no domestic policy.

18. His troika of priorities 2009---health care, cap and trade, financial regulatory reform---are routinely outta reach.

19. He's replaced them with a far tinier trio, all ad libbed AFTER MASSACHUSETTS.

20. His jobs bill which, for political reasons, he can't call what it is, another STIMULUS.

21. His bank tax, also product of post-MA.

22. And finally, his debt commission, already VOTED DOWN in the Senate.

23. The point---very little remains even conceivable to the once overtly ambitious Obama.

24. And 2/3 of that which remains on the president's cracked little salad plate---his bank tax and his debt commission---aint goin nowhere

25. Iran is very, very dangerous.

26. Obama is completely impotent.

The Prof
 
... nuclear power is a natural acquisition in the technological development of human societies. Wanting to stop Iran from achieving it is like trying to stop evolution.

Unless they are a protectorate, any sufficiently prosperous society will eventually achieve nuclear capability.
 
Last edited:
Iran might, just might, already have a nuke. They may have bought one... there are quite a few that have gone missing from former-Soviet inventory.

They have a missle that might be capable of getting a satellite into orbit. That missle might be capable of hitting CONUS.

Feb 11 just might turn out to be more "intresting" than many of us would care for. Know what EMP is?
 
Who cares if Iran has a nuke or not? "Mutually assured destruction" has worked for 60 years. The United States still has an overwhelming tactical advantage in any scenario.

If it comes down to disrupting international commerce or letting Iran get a nuke, I say let them have a nuke.
 
Morality Games said:
... nuclear power is a natural acquisition in the technological development of human societies. Wanting to stop Iran from achieving it is like trying to stop evolution.
Click to expand...

not a winning platform
 
Morality Games said:
Who cares if Iran has a nuke or not? "Mutually assured destruction" has worked for 60 years. The United States still has an overwhelming tactical advantage in any scenario.

If it comes down to disrupting international commerce or letting Iran get a nuke, I say let them have a nuke.
Click to expand...

MAD don't deter suicide bombers
 
This is why terrorism scares me: I live in Los Angeles and we have a giant target sign painted on us. I mean, really, why not nuke Los Angeles?
 
The Prof said:
not a winning platform
Click to expand...

The only way to permanently stop Iran from achieving nuclear capability is to defeat them in a war and occupy them, which would years, cost lots of money, and require millions of draftees to be effective.

Sanctions would hurt the West as much as Iran, making them unsustainable and therefore nothing more than a delay. Military strikes would amount to the same. Iran will still get nuclear power if either of these strategies is pursued.
 
not responsible policy

you run on that, you won't get 20%
 
The Prof said:
not responsible policy

you run on that, you won't get 20%
Click to expand...

Reasonableness rarely makes for a popular platform.

However, it is the strategy that is most likely to be pursued by both Democrats and Republicans, regardless of whether they adopt a dove or hawk stance.

As much as every attack or sanction against Iran hurts it, it is also a knife in the gut of American-European economies. Mutually assured economic decline is the biggest guarantee of peace. Nothing is more important to a society than prosperity.
 
Last edited:
pretty words

too pretty for reality
 
The Prof said:
pretty words

too pretty for reality
Click to expand...

Hardly. 'Pretty' would be saying the trust of the United States in allowing Iran to achieve nuclear capability without fuss would cause great reflection among the political-military-economic elite and cause them to adopt a modern, humanitarian outlook and policies.

I'm just saying that Iran's government wants its nation to survive and it wants to prosper, which is why they dedicate so much attention and resources to economic/technological development and education. If destroying Israel was their main purpose in existence, they could have just used their army by now. They would have soon be destroyed by NATO bombings and attacks (nuclear or otherwise), but not before they reduced Israel to a modicum of its former power, if not ruined it totally. Iran is hostile to Israel, but not to the point they would confront it directly at the expense of their own economic progress. They don't care that much.

To be frank, it should be obvious Iran's survival and prosperity is far more important to Iran than doing anything to Israel. Given an ultimatum between one or the other, they would definitely choose their own progress.

Iran has never acted like a giant suicide bomber. No nation ever has.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Who cares if Iran has a nuke or not? "Mutually assured destruction" has worked for 60 years. The United States still has an overwhelming tactical advantage in any scenario.

If it comes down to disrupting international commerce or letting Iran get a nuke, I say let them have a nuke.
Click to expand...



****** Can we Get the above entry placed in some Golden setting so it can be studied in the future by what's Left of Humanity ???? Maybe in that Seed bunker in the Norwegian Arctic in a time capsule.
 
Zinc Route said:
****** Can we Get the above entry placed in some Golden setting so it can be studied in the future by what's Left of Humanity ???? Maybe in that Seed bunker in the Norwegian Arctic in a time capsule.
Click to expand...

Iran can't produce enough nukes to threaten the existence of human civilization.

Once again, Iran's government has invested a considerable portion of their revenue over the last couple decades into modernizing their economy and improving prosperity. The idea they are willing to "suicide bomb" their country to hurt the West is not a very sound theory.

Iran's government, while tyrannical, cares far more about Iran than the Palestinians and Israel.
 
Last edited:
whoa

one nuke is a little too much human civilization for my taste
 
The Prof said:
whoa

one nuke is a little too much human civilization for my taste
Click to expand...

One nuke would be bad, but it doesn't justify claims that Iran can somehow cause Armageddon. That's hyperbole.
 
The Prof said:
whoa

one nuke is a little too much human civilization for my taste
Click to expand...

Congratz, because there are about 25,000 nuclear weapons out there, and I doubt all of them are in the hands of countries.

Iran having a nuke is not as big of a threat as you think it is.
 
Iran having a nuke is not as big of a threat as you think it is.
Click to expand...

He fears Iran's government's sole purpose in existence is to hurt the West and that they are willing to have their own people, language, religion, and culture destroyed to accomplish that feet. That is, that they are going to suicide bomb themselves on a nuclear scale.

Not a very plausible belief because Iran's government has demonstrated considerable investment in the revitalization of its economy and culture. Taking up the cause of the Palestinians is popular among largely Muslim countries, but not to the extent envisioned by Prof.
 
The Prof said:
who said armageddon?
Click to expand...

Zinc route implied the consequences of Iran achieving nuclear capability would be comparable to Armageddon because only a remnant of humanity would remain to laugh at my words, which would have been preserved in a time capsule.

he does?

LOL!
Click to expand...

What is the exact nature of your fear?
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
i'm not afraid

obama is
Click to expand...

Trolling is the height of your debating abilities, it seems. Either you believe Iran is willing to sacrifice itself to deploy a nuke or you don't. There is no middle ground on an issue like these where deploying a nuke against other nuke-carrying powers insures your destruction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom