BF2S Forums U.S. to give Iran nuclear technology

i think the only nuclear tech usa will give them will fall from a B-2.

i think that is an outstanding solution.  if iran is serious about peaceful nuclear proliferation then the ball is in their court

chuyskywalker wrote:

When you mention, in the same topic, the kunundrum of deciding to "invade/nuke" Iran or give them nuclear technology, then yes. That's how most people would read that. Or, translated, "what do you think of us giving nuke tech to Iran while we're thinking about bombing them with nukes?"

It does sound quite a bit like that.

Sorry, only said it because we've had polls/topics about:

-whether to nuke the facilities
-whether to invade in surgical strikes
-who should invade
-whether to let them continue

Just pointing out it seems to be a good solution involving none of the above.

EDIT:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

i think that is an outstanding solution.  if iran is serious about peaceful nuclear proliferation then the ball is in their court

It does sound good, I agree.  There are a few issues I can see like who will run the facilities?

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-06-06 16:19:13)

chuyskywalker wrote:

I imagine they are talking about better reactor cores etc for making power plants, not tech to build nukes. The entire point of the concession is to get them to STOP weaponifying plutonium.

Thanks for having a brain.

RXT

I think that Ahmadenijad is just misrepresented, but that he is also an individual with a confused argument of sorts. The statement of his attributed to the desire to "wipe Israel off the map" is more of a disagreement with the European placement of the Jews into the community of the Palestinians, usurping and displacing an extremely large number of people. Truly, such "establishment of a Jewish national home" (words of Palestine Mandate, Article 2 -- along with "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine") are truly without reason. IMHO, such an act was quite needless. As it were, unless the powers that preside over Isreal somehow feel it proper to relinquish their power and proceed as average citizens within another government, the split of "Palestine's territory" with Isreal will no doubt remain. In all circumstance, this is the objective Ahmadenijad alludes to, as he supposes that "catering to the West (particularly the US)" is unsustainable for incorporation and prosperization of the Arab region. The dicussion noted within a particular participant here quite clearly establishes this (between Ahmadenijad and a writer for a German magazine). As I see it, Iran should be alotted the ability to produce nuclear power, albeit with a fairly extreme degree of monitoring.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-07 16:39:01)

how the hell did nukes get the most votes?

Xietsu wrote:

I don't think providing "poll options" about the public's perceived "best plan of action" is really a useful type of thread, as when you actually make such a judgement, you often identify your perspective as one conceived without the required deliberation usually associated with accuracy in ones stance within a discussion. Thusly, I think it more proper to construct an informative post containing an analysis of said misperceived statements, with a follow-up link to such an article. Considering that the majority lack the will to commit time to a "large read", having your post without an entirety spanning "scrolling lengths" is most likely the best method of approach.

So you want to ban polls from the debate section?  Why not start a poll and see who agrees?

No it isn't. You could have a poll about disagreeing or agreeing. Regardless, there are some topics in which there is no right answer, with a multitude of solutions for resolution.

Anyways, such polls, within the light of "Debate and Serious Talk" could also provide a gauge for a certain human predilection, even given the fact that most views are often jumps to conclusions.

Why not start a poll about why assumption just "feels so right"? It's the gut feeling...eh, Stephen Colbert? God dammit I knew it...

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-06 16:53:49)

the point of a poll is just to get a feel about what other people are thinking, nothing official dude. you dont like a poll, dont vote that simple.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-06-06 16:56:07)

They want to give the Iranians light water reactors...

I'm more worried about the Israeli's having nukes anyway, I wonder where they got those from? *sarcasm* , what the fuck they're doing there and why they need approximately 200 of them...No wonder Iran gets edgy!

RicardoBlanco wrote:

They want to give the Iranians light water reactors...

I'm more worried about the Israeli's having nukes anyway, I wonder where they got those from? *sarcasm* , what the fuck they're doing there and why they need approximately 200 of them...No wonder Iran gets edgy!

Israel never pledged the annihilation of another sovereign state.

Bubbalo wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Israel never pledged the annihilation of another sovereign state.

No, but they did wipe Palestine off the map pretty handsomely.

palestine has never been a modern legitimate country, therefore it could never have had its borders removed.

Ayatollah Khamenei can talk all he wants, but you have to realize that over half of iran's income is from the oil sector, so they would hurt themselves more than they would hurt the US.

As for nuclear technology, the enrichment is the issue. Normal light water reactors need about 3-10% enrichment of fissile material to become critical (functional), while weapon grade is 90%+. The problem is that light water reactors (H20) can be used as breeder reactors to help make fissle material (Uranium-233. Uranium-235. Plutonium-239.) which is what you want for making weapons (as a side note, fissile material is the 'enriched' product). On the other hand, heavy water reactors(H30), require no fissile material, but unfortunatly the heavy water is also the same material that is needed to make a hydrogen bomb, as opposed to the regular nuke.

It is really a catch 22, and i have no problem with them using nuclear power, but you can't expect much support when you threaten to blow up your neighbor, or deny/belittle the holocaust.

If iran could demonstrate some inner stability and rational as a country, they would only help themselves, and everyone else.