Jump to content


Photo

Iran, to Expand its Enrichment Program to up to 54k Centrifuges


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 07 November 2007 - 02:05 PM

http://www.foxnews.c...,308903,00.html

U.S. experts say 3,000 centrifuges are in theory enough to produce a nuclear weapon, perhaps as soon as within a year.

Iran says it plans to expand its enrichment program to up to 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz in central Iran — which would amount to the level of industrial-scale uranium enrichment.

Two rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to halt the enrichment.


Why does a nation need 54k centerfuges in order to create enough nuclear fuel to support an almost non-existant civilian set of nuclear power plants?

Maybe because it has no intention of having a civilian nulcear power plant program on the level they claim.

Thier fearless leader has proclaimed no compromise on it's current setup and plans to expand even more.

Ahmadinejad on Wednesday reiterated his rejection of any suspension of Iran's enrichment activities, or even a compromise over how Tehran will proceed beyond the 3,000 centrifuges.


"The world must know that this nation will not give up one iota of its nuclear rights ... if they think they can get concessions from this nation, they are badly mistaken," he concluded.

Iran says it is fully within its rights to pursue the enrichment to produce fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Is this the same nation who had Iranian engineers killed recently in an airstrike by Israel on a Syrian nuclear facility?

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? How about that? Seems Iran has two sets of eyes as well as two tongues, each seeing something differant as well as saying something differant.

The irony of the two positions is well abit, how do i say, staggering?!

#2 CodeCat

CodeCat

    Half fox, half cat, and all insanity!

  • Members
  • 3,768 posts
  •  Fighting for equality of all species

Posted 07 November 2007 - 04:20 PM

It's not like you have any right to attack people on the NPT, since you have more nukes than anyone else already. What Iran is doing with their nuclear programme is certainly not as bad as what the US has done, by far.
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

#3 Elerium

Elerium

    Road test? Me? But I gotta go save the world!

  • Project Team
  • 631 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Temporal Agent

Posted 07 November 2007 - 04:49 PM

Oh, really?

I wonder what would happen if Hitler had the ability to create nuclear weapons.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#4 Tom

Tom

    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:18 PM

He never had the ability because he was defeated before then. And even then the US still used the atom bomb both as a political message to the soviet union and according to its claims weaken Japan and force a surrender.

The only reason the US doesn't want Tehran having nuclear capibilities is because it puts israels dominant present in the middle east under threat and also puts the USA's presence in the middle east under threat. To allow Israel to be able to strike other countries nuclear power stations is also hindering that nations progress to develop as it needs too.

I understand everyones worry about Syrian and Iranian nuclear weapon production, but to be honest no one nowadays is stupid enough to even use nuclear weapons. To nuke Israel would definately be stupid as the middle east would become an instantaneous glass desert. I'm also sure Israel has more than enough nuclear weapons that it can defend itself with.

Edited by Hybrid, 07 November 2007 - 05:19 PM.


#5 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:41 PM

It's not like you have any right to attack people on the NPT, since you have more nukes than anyone else already. What Iran is doing with their nuclear programme is certainly not as bad as what the US has done, by far.


Russia maintains a larger nuclear stockpile than the United States does, and I fail to see how the US having nuclear weapons is worse than the largest sponsor of terrorism having nuclear weapons.
Posted Image

#6 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:44 PM

i thought saudi-arabia was the biggest sponsor. and they're on our side.


anyway, the nuclear troubles in Iran is more or less a nice way for Iran to make us in the west not use the better argument which is "lack of democracy". that would have gone alot better with its population than "Iran must be stopped because they are eeevil". stop the antagonizing on the nuclear topic and start it on the democracy and freedom topic.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#7 Tom

Tom

    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:49 PM

That won't happen. History is repeating itself yet again. Iraq 2002, Iran 2007. No different. There is going to be a war whether what they are being accused of is true or not. The neocons would lose too much to have Iran gain such a power foothold in the middle east.

And the "sponsor of terrorism" is a ridiculous argument. Iran is sponsoring terrorism the same way the USA is sponsoring terrorism and has done for decades, to further its own means and agendas. Its just a part of modern ideological warfare.

#8 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:00 PM

How many American supplied weapons does Hamas or Hezbollah have?
Posted Image

#9 Phil

Phil

    Force Majeure

  • Network Leaders
  • 7,971 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Projects:Revora, C&C:Online
  •  Thought Police
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Network Leader
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:27 PM

How many American supplied weapons does/did Al Qaeda have?
Or if you want to go a step further: how many American supplied weapons does the CIA have?

revorapresident.jpg
My Political Compass

Sieben Elefanten hatte Herr Dschin
Und da war dann noch der achte.
Sieben waren wild und der achte war zahm
Und der achte war's, der sie bewachte.


#10 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:00 PM

Oh please, don't start the CIA is a terrorist organization bullshit.

The US supplied the Taliban so that they could fight the USSR, not so they could engage in terrorist activities. Iran on the other hand, supplies Hamas and Hezbollah with the intent of enabling them to attack Israeli civilians.
Posted Image

#11 Phil

Phil

    Force Majeure

  • Network Leaders
  • 7,971 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Projects:Revora, C&C:Online
  •  Thought Police
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Network Leader
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:14 PM

Some of their activities come quite close to that of a terrorist organisation. The only difference is that it's much more official and commonly accepted to a certain degree. Actions and intentions are what counts though.

Yeah, you're right. Supporting people to kill Russians was good, supporting people to kill Israelis is bad. Makes a lot of sense, seeing as Israel is an ally now, whereas Russia was the enemy back then. Let me guess: pro US = good, contra US = bad?
And before you start trying to argue that it's the fact that they kill civilians that makes them evil, reflect if you'd still not consider them to be terrorists if they only attacked military camps.

revorapresident.jpg
My Political Compass

Sieben Elefanten hatte Herr Dschin
Und da war dann noch der achte.
Sieben waren wild und der achte war zahm
Und der achte war's, der sie bewachte.


#12 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:28 PM

The Afghanis were at war the Soviet military. They were fighting the invading army, not killing people in Moscow or St. Petersburg.

Hamas kills civilians in an attempt to get their political goals accomplished. They kill Israeli civilians, when their real problem lies with the Israeli government.

There is a difference in the two.

You are clearly missing my point, since I am saying that the US did not supply terrorists because the Afghanis were not terrorists when they were fighting the Soviet Union because they were only fighting the Soviet military, and not its civilian population.
Posted Image

#13 CodeCat

CodeCat

    Half fox, half cat, and all insanity!

  • Members
  • 3,768 posts
  •  Fighting for equality of all species

Posted 07 November 2007 - 09:17 PM

Well by that standard, the insurgents in Iraq aren't terrorists either. They're just fighting off an invading army. Maybe it's time someone stepped in and supported them!
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

#14 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 07 November 2007 - 11:46 PM

The Iraqi insurgents are not terrorists, they are insurgents. The Al Qaeda groups in Iraq are terrorists however.
Posted Image

#15 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 08 November 2007 - 03:50 AM

It's not like you have any right to attack people on the NPT, since you have more nukes than anyone else already. What Iran is doing with their nuclear programme is certainly not as bad as what the US has done, by far.

We are talking about Iran, you remember the nation where people are fleeing from to Europe? It's not what have the Iranians done, it's what they will do. You have a nation run by mullahs from the 5th century led by a President that has stated he will wipe Israel off the map. Now you tell me again why we wouldn't want the Iranians to have nukes. Please answer that question based on my comment.

The only reason the US doesn't want Tehran having nuclear capibilities is because it puts israels dominant present in the middle east under threat and also puts the USA's presence in the middle east under threat. To allow Israel to be able to strike other countries nuclear power stations is also hindering that nations progress to develop as it needs too.

I understand everyones worry about Syrian and Iranian nuclear weapon production, but to be honest no one nowadays is stupid enough to even use nuclear weapons. To nuke Israel would definately be stupid as the middle east would become an instantaneous glass desert. I'm also sure Israel has more than enough nuclear weapons that it can defend itself with.

Well of course it puts Israels existance at stake. They openly said thier intention is to remove Israel from the equation. The world has nothing against civilian atomic energy, but please mate, this nation is not pursueing this for that cause.

How can you measure if a nation is stupid enough to use nukes when they openly flaunt thier endless ranks of suicide bombers? Nukes don't defend, if thier is nothing left to defend, hence mutually assured destruction...

That won't happen. History is repeating itself yet again. Iraq 2002, Iran 2007. No different. There is going to be a war whether what they are being accused of is true or not. The neocons would lose too much to have Iran gain such a power foothold in the middle east.

And the "sponsor of terrorism" is a ridiculous argument. Iran is sponsoring terrorism the same way the USA is sponsoring terrorism and has done for decades, to further its own means and agendas. Its just a part of modern ideological warfare.

If you haven't noticed, Iran is brutal to it's people and would be more than willing to be brutal to anyone under thier aire of influence. "Shariah Law or Death!"

About sponsor of terrorism. Don't be misguided. They certainly provide weapons to maximise civilian casualties. The US does not do that. If you accuse the US of being a sponsor of terrorism, than you and I may rumble on the topic. Because I'd have to assume the UK are also sponsors of terrorism?

Well by that standard, the insurgents in Iraq aren't terrorists either. They're just fighting off an invading army. Maybe it's time someone stepped in and supported them!

Actually they mostly are warlords fighting against a democratically elected government. Remember the elections they had. So who exactly are they fighting? Themselves?

They certainly are/seems more capable of killing themselves than US troops. What exactly are they "insurging against?"

They want thier larger piece of the pie like anyone else. That's what they are fighting for. A piece of the money and control. They are not fighting against US oppression. Please dude, we'd love to get our troops out of there. But it'd be a crime against humanity if we left too soon...

#16 CodeCat

CodeCat

    Half fox, half cat, and all insanity!

  • Members
  • 3,768 posts
  •  Fighting for equality of all species

Posted 08 November 2007 - 01:05 PM

We are talking about Iran, you remember the nation where people are fleeing from to Europe? It's not what have the Iranians done, it's what they will do. You have a nation run by mullahs from the 5th century led by a President that has stated he will wipe Israel off the map. Now you tell me again why we wouldn't want the Iranians to have nukes. Please answer that question based on my comment.

People are fleeing the US into Canada. The US is a nation run by religious extremists from the 18th century led by a president that has stated he wants to invade several countries, AND HAS ALREADY DONE SO.

Honestly, I don't see Iran as much more of a threat to world peace than the US. And I certainly don't trust the US with nukes anymore than Iran, especially since they have already used them in the past.
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

#17 Gaffel

Gaffel

    title available

  • Members
  • 387 posts
  •  <-_->

Posted 08 November 2007 - 01:31 PM

Hostile what is your f*cking problem about the people in the middle east? I looks like you realy hate them. Where are you from? USA? They are the f*cking terrorist, how many countries have they attack for no reason?
Let the iranians build they plants if they want, i heard from friends that Iran get power interruption often, sometime even 48 hours withoute power or water. You think Iran going to nuke somebody? Thats just crazy.
You are a exempel of a US terrorsit. Your stupid president is a stupid monkey with power.
By the way F*CK the CIA and FBI.
Quzz umak

Edited by Gaffel, 08 November 2007 - 01:35 PM.


#18 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 08 November 2007 - 02:52 PM

Hostile what is your f*cking problem about the people in the middle east? I looks like you realy hate them. Where are you from? USA? They are the f*cking terrorist, how many countries have they attack for no reason?
Let the iranians build they plants if they want, i heard from friends that Iran get power interruption often, sometime even 48 hours withoute power or water. You think Iran going to nuke somebody? Thats just crazy.
You are a exempel of a US terrorsit. Your stupid president is a stupid monkey with power.
By the way F*CK the CIA and FBI.
Quzz umak

Please feel free to tell what you REALLY think. :)

Where are all these nuclear power plants they plan on building? They have one in the planning with Russia and can't even work out the deal as it it. Russia said they would build one as long as they managed the nuclear fuel. Iran declined.

Because Iran wants the nuclear fuel. I wouldn't consider that building power plants. In fact what power plants are you even referring to?

This one from 2005?
http://www.thenation...c/20050912/hiro

Iran rejected the European package. It resumed its work at the plant near Isfahan, where uranium oxide (called yellowcake) is converted to uranium hexafluoride gas--but only under the watchful eyes of the IAEA inspectors. This gas is the feedstock for centrifuges that enrich uranium to varying degrees: 4 percent for power plants, 20 percent for research reactors and 90 percent or higher for weapons.

Europe said they would build some but Iran rejected. There is this plant near Isfahan. It doesn't even produce electricity.

Here I found this for you.
http://www.forbes.co...afx3883723.html
First plant to produce electricity. ONE, so now tell me what they need 54k centrifuges for?

Maybe they're lieing about building 54k centrigues. But if they are lieing about that than how can you believe anything they say? Maybe you'll address that as well as my other points above?

I'll be surpirsed to see you even come back to attempt to explain yourself. If you do even come back I'm sure, from your last post, it'll be a bunch of name calling.

I don't hate middle eastern people, I hate dingbat despots who funnel arms to terror groups to perpetuate regional conflict to spread shariah law at the expanse of the people. Do you live in a nation under shariah law? I've learned it's really fun. Go try it for yourself.

True muslims don't kill people for the sake of maximizing civilian casualties. True muslims are peaceful people.

#19 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:41 PM

Where are all these nuclear power plants they plan on building? They have one in the planning with Russia and can't even work out the deal as it it. Russia said they would build one as long as they managed the nuclear fuel. Iran declined.

Because Iran wants the nuclear fuel. I wouldn't consider that building power plants. In fact what power plants are you even referring to?


as i mentioned earlier, the nuclear power is not needed. the antagonism is needed to distract their people and give the extremists in power more power. its alot easier for the ones in power to make your people look outward and argue with foreigners instead of looking inwards and argue with the ones in power there.

Iran is playing with a perspective beyond a war. they probably realize that if they get attacked by the US, they will have massive losses. that doesnt mean that they can't win in the long run.
imagine if the leaders of Iran expect the US to bomb them and try to find evidence that they are making nukes. what if they have from day one expected this to happen and have made sure that it looks like they are making nukes, yet when the shit hits the fan the evidence is 100% on their side.

it would be quite effective in ruining the remaining world opinion on the US. first Iraq, which was also a search for weapons of mass destruction, then Iran, which also didnt have any? would look very bad indeed.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#20 WrathOfLust

WrathOfLust

    Celsia9SS

  • Members
  • 272 posts
  • Location:/\/ew York
  • Projects:Mental Omega,Robot Storm.
  •  Beta Tester/Sugester.

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:52 PM

Eh,even if Iran somehow produces a nuke how will they deliver it?will they lunch a missile?or send a bomber? There technology is so outdated they use soviet equipment from the cold war era,the nuke will never get to the destination since Russians and Americans worked for countless defences against nuclear attacks unless they actualy bring one part by part and assemble it in a large city such as new york. As for nuking Israel? a country whose politics are influenced by mullahs and only holds in place because people there are ignorant worshipers?
I doubt nuking Israel would be aprooved since the third holyest place in islam located there The Haram al Sharif (Temple Mount) from which Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended to Heaven,if every muslim is requered to visit it at list once in his life erasing it from existance will be goign against there own believes that drive them to fight in teh first place,not countign the poverty that they blame america for.
What Iran wants is an Iron Fist to wave at everyone and a country were religion believes drive people and who are missleded to think that people who are not of same religion are to be converted or killed?A country without a proper government simply shouldnt have that,its a loaded gun in a childs hands.

Where are all these nuclear power plants they plan on building? They have one in the planning with Russia and can't even work out the deal as it it. Russia said they would build one as long as they managed the nuclear fuel. Iran declined.


They were given opportunities,but apperantly they say they need the technology to buld the nuclear powerplants them selves....

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

~Fear My Kirovs!~





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users