Russia: Iran's nuclear plant to get fuel next week

Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
edited August 2010 in A Moving Train
I think the doomsday clock just inched forward.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 16 mins ago
MOSCOW – Russia will load fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant next week despite U.S. demands to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear energy until the country proves that it's not pursuing a weapons capacity, officials said Friday.
Uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning a startup process that will last about a month and end with the reactor sending electricity to Iranian cities, Russian and Iranian officials said.
"From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation," said Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for the Russian nuclear agency, told The Associated Press.
Russia signed a $1 billion contract to build the Bushehr plant in 1995 but it has dragged its feet on completing the project.
Moscow has cited technical reasons for the delays, but analysts say Moscow has used the project to press Iran to ease its defiance over its nuclear program.
Russian officials say, however, that U.N. sanctions against Iran, including a new, more stringent set approved in June, don't directly prevent Moscow from going ahead with the Bushehr project. It has argued that the Bushehr project is essential for persuading Iran to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog and fulfill its obligations under international nuclear nonproliferation agreements.
Russian officials did not say why they had decided to move ahead with loading fuel into the Bushehr plant now.
The uranium fuel used by the Bushehr plant is enriched to a level too low to be used in an nuclear weapon. Iran is already producing uranium enriched to that level — about 3.5 percent — and has started a pilot program of enriching uranium to 20 percent. Iran claims it needs the 20 percent enriched uranium to produce fuel for a medical research reactor, but the move has further heightened international concerns about its nuclear program.
Uranium must be enriched to over 90 percent to be used in a nuclear warhead.
Iran's semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying that the country had invited International Atomic Energy Agency experts to watch the transfer of fuel, which was shipped about two years ago, into the Bushehr reactor.
"Fuel complexes are sealed (and being monitored by IAEA). Naturally, IAEA inspectors will be there to watch the unsealing," ISNA quoted Salehi as saying.
Russia has said that the Bushehr project has been closely supervised by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, which declined comment Friday. It also says Iran has signed a pledge to ship all the spent uranium fuel from Bushehr back to Russia for reprocessing, excluding a possibility that any of it could used to make nuclear weapons.
Russia has walked a fine line on Iran for years. It is one of the six powers leading international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop an atomic bomb. It has backed U.N. sanctions, but strongly criticized the U.S. and the European Union for following up with separate, even stronger sanctions.
Be Excellent To Each Other
Party On, Dudes!
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • sabreleafsabreleaf Posts: 310
    The Russians have not changed at all. They are back to the anit-west ways. All the Commi's are back in charge. We should have no dealings with them or American businesses over there. They would rather make a buck then protect the world. Should of Nuked them after the Germans surrenderd like Gen. McCarthur said. I was over there with President Clinton and were told by are intel that they would still tail us and bug are rooms ect.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    sabreleaf wrote:
    The Russians have not changed at all. They are back to the anit-west ways. All the Commi's are back in charge. We should have no dealings with them or American businesses over there. They would rather make a buck then protect the world. Should of Nuked them after the Germans surrenderd like Gen. McCarthur said. I was over there with President Clinton and were told by are intel that they would still tail us and bug are rooms ect.

    i suggest you take a look at who the largest exporter of arms is ...
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    We're exactly the same... we have drone planes all over the world spying...we sell and arm dangerous nations (largest in the world by the way in that dept) and we do it all for our skewed, greedy self-interest.
    sabreleaf wrote:
    The Russians have not changed at all. They are back to the anit-west ways. All the Commi's are back in charge. We should have no dealings with them or American businesses over there. They would rather make a buck then protect the world. Should of Nuked them after the Germans surrenderd like Gen. McCarthur said. I was over there with President Clinton and were told by are intel that they would still tail us and bug are rooms ect.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • sabreleafsabreleaf Posts: 310
    Here come the liberals. We don't sell arms to the crazy's like N Korea and Iran like China and Russia. We don't sell nuclear fuel to the nut bags. I know you believe Iran when they say they just want to use it for energy. Of course. Everyone is peace and love. Funny their leader talks about using nukes all the time but you don't care. Who sells the most arms is not related to this article.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    It's got nothing to do with "liberals". Of course the spread of nuclear weapons is a terrible thing and we should aim to make non-nuclear proliferation treaties across the board for all nations to adhere too... but we don't because we prefer to say who can and can't have them which builds resentment and hypocrisy. And whether it's the biggest weapons or the smallest, arming the world and then pretending we're here to save it is completely asinine. Perpetual war for perpetual peace is a dead idea... the quicker people realize this, the quicker we'll all be a lot safer.
    sabreleaf wrote:
    Here come the liberals. We don't sell arms to the crazy's like N Korea and Iran like China and Russia. We don't sell nuclear fuel to the nut bags. I know you believe Iran when they say they just want to use it for energy. Of course. Everyone is peace and love. Funny their leader talks about using nukes all the time but you don't care. Who sells the most arms is not related to this article.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    I say let everyone have nuclear energy, hell let everyone have nuclear bombs, I realize there are some people in the world who may WANT to use them, but I doubt there are too many that actually would...remember, their followers may be a little nuts(suicide bombings and all) but their leaders have no interest in being killed.
    For me it is like the right to bear arms, every country, even the ones you disagree with have the right to defend themselves from perceived threats, whether those threats are real or not does not really matter to me. If a terrorist wants a nuclear bomb, they will get one, stopping a country from having more energy is not our business.
    Anyways, if we had just been supportive of iran doing this in the first place things may be different right now in regards to our relationship, and they may have been more likely to accept outside oversight.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I say let everyone have nuclear energy, hell let everyone have nuclear bombs, I realize there are some people in the world who may WANT to use them, but I doubt there are too many that actually would...remember, their followers may be a little nuts(suicide bombings and all) but their leaders have no interest in being killed.
    For me it is like the right to bear arms, every country, even the ones you disagree with have the right to defend themselves from perceived threats, whether those threats are real or not does not really matter to me. If a terrorist wants a nuclear bomb, they will get one, stopping a country from having more energy is not our business.
    Anyways, if we had just been supportive of iran doing this in the first place things may be different right now in regards to our relationship, and they may have been more likely to accept outside oversight.
    i agree with you here mike. but i seriously doubt that any nuclear bomb will ever be used as a means of defense. if you look at the two instances that they were used those were clearly offensive moves. we flew over japan and delivered the two greatest uses of force in human history. we were not defending our home land or any strategic land, we were on offense when we dropped those bombs. and no matter how it goes down, the next time one is used it will be in retaliation to an attack. i would bet that the first attack would never be nuclear and that it would be an offensive move of last resort..
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    FiveB247x wrote:
    It's got nothing to do with "liberals". Of course the spread of nuclear weapons is a terrible thing and we should aim to make non-nuclear proliferation treaties across the board for all nations to adhere too... but we don't because we prefer to say who can and can't have them which builds resentment and hypocrisy. And whether it's the biggest weapons or the smallest, arming the world and then pretending we're here to save it is completely asinine. Perpetual war for perpetual peace is a dead idea... the quicker people realize this, the quicker we'll all be a lot safer.
    sabreleaf wrote:
    Here come the liberals. We don't sell arms to the crazy's like N Korea and Iran like China and Russia. We don't sell nuclear fuel to the nut bags. I know you believe Iran when they say they just want to use it for energy. Of course. Everyone is peace and love. Funny their leader talks about using nukes all the time but you don't care. Who sells the most arms is not related to this article.
    i also agree with you five. our brutish policy towards others saying "we can have these weapons but you can't bwahahaha" only makes these countries' desire for the weapons that much greater. especially considering we are the only country to have ever used them the irony is stunning, as if we claim to have some moral high ground or something.

    there will never be an even exchange, perpetual war for perpetual peace can never happen. in 2 months we will have been at war in afghanistan for 9 years and there is no end in sight... that is about as perpetual as it gets...then will there be peace after that? i doubt it because all of those thousands of iraqis and afghans that have lost family members as a result of our actions will continue to have us as their mortal enemy.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    sabreleaf wrote:
    Here come the liberals. We don't sell arms to the crazy's like N Korea and Iran like China and Russia. We don't sell nuclear fuel to the nut bags. I know you believe Iran when they say they just want to use it for energy. Of course. Everyone is peace and love. Funny their leader talks about using nukes all the time but you don't care. Who sells the most arms is not related to this article.

    naw ... you sell them to african dictators who use the weapons to brutalize women and children ...

    who sells the most arms is related to your original post which claimed russia was only in it for the buck ... just trying to point out that the US is all about the mighty dollar ...
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I say let everyone have nuclear energy, hell let everyone have nuclear bombs, I realize there are some people in the world who may WANT to use them, but I doubt there are too many that actually would...remember, their followers may be a little nuts(suicide bombings and all) but their leaders have no interest in being killed.
    For me it is like the right to bear arms, every country, even the ones you disagree with have the right to defend themselves from perceived threats, whether those threats are real or not does not really matter to me. If a terrorist wants a nuclear bomb, they will get one, stopping a country from having more energy is not our business.
    Anyways, if we had just been supportive of iran doing this in the first place things may be different right now in regards to our relationship, and they may have been more likely to accept outside oversight.
    i agree with you here mike. but i seriously doubt that any nuclear bomb will ever be used as a means of defense. if you look at the two instances that they were used those were clearly offensive moves. we flew over japan and delivered the two greatest uses of force in human history. we were not defending our home land or any strategic land, we were on offense when we dropped those bombs. and no matter how it goes down, the next time one is used it will be in retaliation to an attack. i would bet that the first attack would never be nuclear and that it would be an offensive move of last resort..
    Agreed. One of the reasons we actually chose to drop the bombs was because we were fairly certain japan did not have the capabilities of dropping one on us..if we knew we would be hit tomorrow by the same bomb, would we actually drop it? that is where the idea of defense comes from, if everyone has the ability, why would anyone use it? Most leaders do not want to lose their power, and certain death and destruction from nuclear war would not allow them to keep their power.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I say let everyone have nuclear energy, hell let everyone have nuclear bombs, I realize there are some people in the world who may WANT to use them, but I doubt there are too many that actually would...remember, their followers may be a little nuts(suicide bombings and all) but their leaders have no interest in being killed.
    For me it is like the right to bear arms, every country, even the ones you disagree with have the right to defend themselves from perceived threats, whether those threats are real or not does not really matter to me. If a terrorist wants a nuclear bomb, they will get one, stopping a country from having more energy is not our business.
    Anyways, if we had just been supportive of iran doing this in the first place things may be different right now in regards to our relationship, and they may have been more likely to accept outside oversight.
    I disagree with this, big time. If Iran was serious about energy, they should be focusing on solar energy. I've never been to Iran, but from what I can tell it is quite sunny over there.

    And it's not using the nukes as defense that concerns me. All it takes is for a single person under a false ideology to supply a small group with a mobile bomb that can be used without consequence to the nation that developed it.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Jason P wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I say let everyone have nuclear energy, hell let everyone have nuclear bombs, I realize there are some people in the world who may WANT to use them, but I doubt there are too many that actually would...remember, their followers may be a little nuts(suicide bombings and all) but their leaders have no interest in being killed.
    For me it is like the right to bear arms, every country, even the ones you disagree with have the right to defend themselves from perceived threats, whether those threats are real or not does not really matter to me. If a terrorist wants a nuclear bomb, they will get one, stopping a country from having more energy is not our business.
    Anyways, if we had just been supportive of iran doing this in the first place things may be different right now in regards to our relationship, and they may have been more likely to accept outside oversight.
    I disagree with this, big time. If Iran was serious about energy, they should be focusing on solar energy. I've never been to Iran, but from what I can tell it is quite sunny over there.

    And it's not using the nukes as defense that concerns me. All it takes is for a single person under a false ideology to supply a small group with a mobile bomb that can be used without consequence to the nation that developed it.
    solar energy could not run anything as efficiently as nuclear energy, we should have a thousand plants here...
    More importantly though, I just don't think Iran is interested in starting a nuclear war, or being a party to anyone detonating a nuclear bomb. If they were interested in a bomb they would have one by now.
    If if the last part is true, then no nation anywhere should be allowed by anyone in the international community to posess a nuclear bomb.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I say let everyone have nuclear energy, hell let everyone have nuclear bombs, I realize there are some people in the world who may WANT to use them, but I doubt there are too many that actually would...remember, their followers may be a little nuts(suicide bombings and all) but their leaders have no interest in being killed.
    For me it is like the right to bear arms, every country, even the ones you disagree with have the right to defend themselves from perceived threats, whether those threats are real or not does not really matter to me. If a terrorist wants a nuclear bomb, they will get one, stopping a country from having more energy is not our business.
    Anyways, if we had just been supportive of iran doing this in the first place things may be different right now in regards to our relationship, and they may have been more likely to accept outside oversight.
    I disagree with this, big time. If Iran was serious about energy, they should be focusing on solar energy. I've never been to Iran, but from what I can tell it is quite sunny over there.

    And it's not using the nukes as defense that concerns me. All it takes is for a single person under a false ideology to supply a small group with a mobile bomb that can be used without consequence to the nation that developed it.
    solar energy could not run anything as efficiently as nuclear energy, we should have a thousand plants here...
    More importantly though, I just don't think Iran is interested in starting a nuclear war, or being a party to anyone detonating a nuclear bomb. If they were interested in a bomb they would have one by now.
    If if the last part is true, then no nation anywhere should be allowed by anyone in the international community to posess a nuclear bomb.
    I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons. Especially a country whose elected leader has dismissed the notion of the holocaust.

    Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserve and the 2nd largest natural gas reserve in the world. Neither is sustainable but advances in solar technology should be advancing over the next decade.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    As long as they send more sexy Russian spies over here..
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    sabreleaf wrote:
    . Should of Nuked them after the Germans surrenderd like Gen. McCarthur said.


    What?

    Are you insane?

    It's these neurotic ideas that have everyone out against each other in the first place.

    Everyone just needs to calm the fuck down and eat some fruit.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Everyone just needs to calm the fuck down and eat some fruit.
    lol, i totally want to use that in my sig, if it's ok... :lol:
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Everyone just needs to calm the fuck down and eat some fruit.
    lol, i totally want to use that in my sig, if it's ok... :lol:
    lol, sure. I think I got it from the movie, Signs, with crazy Mel Gibson.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    The question to ask is why is Iran pursuing nuclear technolgy? maybe it will lead to a nuke........but why would a country threatened by the world empire, threatened by the superpowers buddy, and mocked through out the world.....why would htey of all people want a nuke?




    maybe that 1 clause when you build a nuke that states..."can prevent US ground invasions".





    its defense. yeah. Aggressive US foreign policy is encouraging states like Iran to pursue nuclear arms. want to see less nukes in th4e world? don't be spo fucking agressive throughout much of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.