Iran has nuclear fuel rods??

Sonshine · #21 01/02/12, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by time

LOL, my link is the source. Your links are the kool-aid you like. Pick a flaver.

Hmmm, I didn't see your link was from Iraq. Did I miss something? My links are from the media, which is where the majority of people get their news. I guess I could try to go back through your various posts and see if you have ever posted any news from the news media, but I won't waste my time.

InvalidID · #22 01/02/12, 01:47 AM

Sonshine, they are just fuel rods so it's nothing to worry about. Fuel rods aren't enriched enough to to create a nuclear explosion. The media really is trying to sell you a bill of goods on this one. The worst they could make is a dirty bomb with them, which they could do without fuel rods anyway.

I saw a piece on Fox news (local) tonight and they say Iran has admitted to having nuclear fuel rods... Meanwhile they are showing missiles being launched from ships. This was to me clear propaganda in it's simplest form.

Sonshine · #23 01/02/12, 01:53 AM

I want to start by thanking you for your civility. I didn't say it was enriched enough for a nuclear explosion. But if they have the pellets it could very easily be made into a bomb. It wasn't just on Fox news, but all over the news media. I do believe it's important to keep abreast of any changes regarding nuclear enrichment, which is why I started this thread. I didn't see the missles being launched, but it's my understanding that had nothing to do with the fuel rods.

Regardless of what some think of me here (not speaking about you) I am not worried about it, but do believe in trying to stay abreast of what other countries are doing that may lead to more problems for the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InvalidID

Sonshine, they are just fuel rods so it's nothing to worry about. Fuel rods aren't enriched enough to to create a nuclear explosion. The media really is trying to sell you a bill of goods on this one. The worst they could make is a dirty bomb with them, which they could do without fuel rods anyway.

I saw a piece on Fox news (local) tonight and they say Iran has admitted to having nuclear fuel rods... Meanwhile they are showing missiles being launched from ships. This was to me clear propaganda in it's simplest form.

Sonshine · #24 01/02/12, 02:16 AM

Iran has repeatedly insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful, civilian energy purposes only. But it has rebuffed repeated demands to halt its production of enriched uranium, and a November 8 report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog found "credible" information that Tehran has carried out work toward nuclear weapons -- including tests of possible bomb components.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/01/wo...rod/?hpt=hp_c3

time · #25 01/02/12, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonshine

Iran has repeatedly insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful, civilian energy purposes only. But it has rebuffed repeated demands to halt its production of enriched uranium, and a November 8 report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog found "credible" information that Tehran has carried out work toward nuclear weapons -- including tests of possible bomb components.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/01/wo...rod/?hpt=hp_c3

Sonshine, The 25 page report I linked is the Nov 8 report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Iran has to enrich uranium to have nuclear power. They are under sanctions and cannot buy fuel rods from other countries. If they did not have sanctions against them, they could have just built a reactor and bought rods.

The world would have something to fear from Iran if it built a enrichment program if they could already get fuel rods. It is a catch 22 for Iran, and us.

The sanctions against Iran forced them to build enrichment programs. If we had lifted sanctions and sold them rods, they would have no excuse to have enrichment capability.

The worst that rods could be is dirty bombs without further enrichment to weapons grade.

Sonshine · #26 01/02/12, 02:45 AM

Ok, since I don't know that much about nuclear weaponry I don't know what all goes into making a nuclear bomb. But if this was nothing to keep an eye on, why do they have sanctions against them for their nuclear enrichment program? And why does the report from the UN nuclear watchdog group found "credible" information that Tehran has carried out work toward nuclear weapons -- including tests of possible bomb components? That sounds to me like there is a valid concern about nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by time

Sonshine, The 25 page report I linked is the Nov 8 report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Iran has to enrich uranium to have nuclear power. They are under sanctions and cannot buy fuel rods from other countries. If they did not have sanctions against them, they could have just built a reactor and bought rods.

The world would have something to fear from Iran if it built a enrichment program if they could already get fuel rods. It is a catch 22 for Iran, and us.

The sanctions against Iran forced them to build enrichment programs. If we had lifted sanctions and sold them rods, they would have no excuse to have enrichment capability.

The worst that rods could be is dirty bombs without further enrichment to weapons grade.

time · #27 01/02/12, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonshine

Ok, since I don't know that much about nuclear weaponry I don't know what all goes into making a nuclear bomb. But if this was nothing to keep an eye on, why do they have sanctions against them for their nuclear enrichment program? And why does the report from the UN nuclear watchdog group found "credible" information that Tehran has carried out work toward nuclear weapons -- including tests of possible bomb components? That sounds to me like there is a valid concern about nuclear weapons.

It doesn't take much to make a nuclear bomb. The key ingredient of course is nuclear fuel. Uranium, while suficient, is not the best material. But it works. The detonator(fuse) doesn't need to be especially sophisticated either, but the better it works, the better the bomb works.

So, Iran has built enrichment equipement. They had sanctions on them before they decided to use nuclear power. The sanctions were not put on them after the fact. This is as I understand it. They don't have sanctions because of their nuclear enrichment program, they have a enrichment program because of the sanctions. Without the sanctions they would not need an enrichment program. Without the sanctions, they could buy fuel rods, and if they tried to enrich the fuel rods to weapons grade, we would know.

As of the NOV 8 report, all of Irans low level enriched material is accounted for. Further, their current known enrichment program is not capable of making weapons grade ore. The suspicion is that they are building another secret enrichment site, but there is no evidence of it. Since the low level material would need to go to the other(possible) site for further enrichment, having it accounted for(the inspectors saw it) makes it impossible to prove it is being made weapons grade.

The possible bomb components are detonators. Iran has developed some fairly sophisticated ones and tested them. They do not deny it. But, they say they are to be used for conventional weapons. It is a plausable explaination. They do have conventional weapons and the detonators would be usefull for them.

This is my version of the "evidence". The full detailed version is there to read. Basically, what is "credible evidence" is the same as USDA comming to my house and looking at my oats and saying it is possible I may be making bread even though there is no grinder in the house to turn it to flour. Sure it's possible. It could also be possible I feed oats to my horse, like I told them.

Tricky Grama · #28 01/02/12, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

They're going to protect themselves with fuel rods?

The apparent outrage over this development tells an interesting story. There's obviously more to our concern than a nuclear weapon threat. The powers-that-be seem furious that Iran is gaining the economic advantage of nuclear power.

Sure. That's what it is!
Poor Iran. Lets send 'em a couple bill bucks.

Ozarks Tom · #29 01/02/12, 04:43 PM

Several years ago the Europeans (I don't know which) offered to sell the Iranians low grade fuel rods for their reactor, if the stopped their enrichment program (which they then wouldn't need), they declined.

Darren · #30 01/02/12, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

They're going to protect themselves with fuel rods?

The apparent outrage over this development tells an interesting story. There's obviously more to our concern than a nuclear weapon threat. The powers-that-be seem furious that Iran is gaining the economic advantage of nuclear power.

With the amount of money they've wasted on the nuclear fuel cycle they could have used their natural gas resources to electrify the entire country using combustion turbines long ago. Make no mistake, the nuclear fuel canard, is a bald-faced lie.

It only takes two years from breaking ground to have a 200+ megawatt natural gas fired power plant in operation. So much for their energy self-sufficiency excuse.

InvalidID · #31 01/02/12, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren

With the amount of money they've wasted on the nuclear fuel cycle they could have used their natural gas resources to electrify the entire country using combustion turbines long ago. Make no mistake, the nuclear fuel canard, is a bald-faced lie.

It only takes two years from breaking ground to have a 200+ megawatt natural gas fired power plant in operation. So much for their energy self-sufficiency excuse.

Or they don't want to burn up their source of income? Maybe they want to SELL the gas and use nuclear, which is cheaper?

Darren · #32 01/02/12, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by time

It doesn't take much to make a nuclear bomb. The key ingredient of course is nuclear fuel. Uranium, while suficient, is not the best material. But it works. The detonator(fuse) doesn't need to be especially sophisticated either, but the better it works, the better the bomb works.

So, Iran has built enrichment equipement. They had sanctions on them before they decided to use nuclear power. The sanctions were not put on them after the fact. This is as I understand it. They don't have sanctions because of their nuclear enrichment program, they have a enrichment program because of the sanctions. Without the sanctions they would not need an enrichment program. Without the sanctions, they could buy fuel rods, and if they tried to enrich the fuel rods to weapons grade, we would know.

As of the NOV 8 report, all of Irans low level enriched material is accounted for. Further, their current known enrichment program is not capable of making weapons grade ore. The suspicion is that they are building another secret enrichment site, but there is no evidence of it. Since the low level material would need to go to the other(possible) site for further enrichment, having it accounted for(the inspectors saw it) makes it impossible to prove it is being made weapons grade.

The possible bomb components are detonators. Iran has developed some fairly sophisticated ones and tested them. They do not deny it. But, they say they are to be used for conventional weapons. It is a plausable explaination. They do have conventional weapons and the detonators would be usefull for them.

This is my version of the "evidence". The full detailed version is there to read. Basically, what is "credible evidence" is the same as USDA comming to my house and looking at my oats and saying it is possible I may be making bread even though there is no grinder in the house to turn it to flour. Sure it's possible. It could also be possible I feed oats to my horse, like I told them.

We originally manufactured the detonaters for nuclear weapons at Fernald in Ohio. They had no other use except for nuclear weapons. That plant was a secret to those living nearby until the very early 90's.

Using those detonators for conventional weapons is a joke. Anyone who knows how a nuclear weapon is detonated (how the parts are brought togther for a critical mass) knows no conventional weapon has a need for that type of mechanism.

Darren · #33 01/02/12, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InvalidID

Or they don't want to burn up their source of income? Maybe they want to SELL the gas and use nuclear, which is cheaper?

Obviously the natural gas which is often wasted during oil production is cheaper. As I said, for much less than they've spent on their nuclear ambitions they could have electrified the entire country. That they chose not to do so, shows their true intentions.

InvalidID · #34 01/02/12, 05:10 PM

A question for those that truly believe we should attack IRan to keep them from getting nuclear weapons:

China, Russia, N. Korea, and I'd bet Pakistan have nukes pointed at us right now right? Why aren't we attacking them?

InvalidID · #35 01/02/12, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren

Obviously the natural gas which is often wasted during oil production is cheaper. As I said, for much less than they've spent on their nuclear ambitions they could have electrified the entire country. That they chose not to do so, shows their true intentions.

Perhaps, but why don't we switch to all coal? We have plenty of coal to produce all the electricity we need. As a matter of fact, we have plenty of natural gas too.

And what if Iran does want the bomb? So what? As I asked above, if we don't want hostile nations to have the bomb why aren't we attacking the several others that have them?

pancho · #36 01/02/12, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InvalidID

A question for those that truly believe we should attack IRan to keep them from getting nuclear weapons:

China, Russia, N. Korea, and I'd bet Pakistan have nukes pointed at us right now right? Why aren't we attacking them?

Why would the U.S. attack a country that already has nukes pointed at us.
That is very dangerous, could get a lot of people hurt.
Better to attack a country that doesn't have any nukes.
All we have to say is we thought they were going to make a nuke.

Darren · #37 01/02/12, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InvalidID

A question for those that truly believe we should attack IRan to keep them from getting nuclear weapons:

China, Russia, N. Korea, and I'd bet Pakistan have nukes pointed at us right now right? Why aren't we attacking them?

Neither China, Russia or N. Korea gain anything by attacking us. They thrive simply by carrying out business in their own way. None are controlled by a fanatic elite that believes martyrs are blessed in heaven. On the contrary the leaders of those nations want to maintain control and continue their cushy existence. The leaders of Iran are on a religious mission. Not so the leaders of china, Russia or N. Korea.

InvalidID · #38 01/02/12, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren

Neither China, Russia or N. Korea gain anything by attacking us. They thrive simply by carrying out business in their own way. None are controlled by a fanatic elite that believes martyrs are blessed in heaven. On the contrary the leaders of those nations want to maintain control and continue their cushy existence. The leaders of Iran are on a religious mission. Not so the leaders of china, Russia or N. Korea.

The leaders of Iran don't want to die anymore than you or I do. If they did we'd see more of them out there on the front lines directing attacks. They use those stories of virgins and such to control the populace.

And the leaders of Russia (Putin), China, and N Korea are pretty fanatical themselves, it's just not a religious fanaticism.

Darren · #39 01/02/12, 05:56 PM

"The leaders of Iran don't want to die anymore than you or I do." Can you prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt? Can you prove that to the Israelis that have to live with rocket attacks?

Do you believe the Muslim Brotherhood and Salaflists that took over Egypt want nothing more than peace with Israel? Do you believe that Israel instigated the conflicts in 1956, 1967, and 1973?

time · #40 01/02/12, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren

"The leaders of Iran don't want to die anymore than you or I do." Can you prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt? Can you prove that to the Israelis that have to live with rocket attacks?

Do you believe the Muslim Brotherhood and Salaflists that took over Egypt want nothing more than peace with Israel? Do you believe that Israel instigated the conflicts in 1956, 1967, and 1973?

I do not care about isreal. Isreals problems are not my problems.