What do you guy's think ?
Perhaps you want to narrow the scope down of your question? What exactly would you like to talk about? Do you have a problem with Arab nations using nuclear technology?
no, I just want to hear your comments on the topic.
Its the first rule. You arent allowed to post a link without stating what it is you would like to discus
As I said before what would you like to discuss? What is your opinion on this matter?
What do you think about Egypt having a nuclear power program, do you think they should be allowed to or not?
btw I'm saying they should, but I'm nowhere being fare since I'm an Egyptian.
If it's a peaceful nuclear program, by all means. Egypt has genuine need for cheap, reliable and lasting power sources.
Yes I think they should allowed to pursue nuclear energy.
Is yours? I know what you mean, but do you not think it is slightly hypocritical to demand that they must only pursue a program for peaceful purposes and not defence, when their next door neighbour doesnt and hasnt.
That next door neighbour has those weapons since the days Nasser said these words:
This is, ahem, before Israel took the occupied territories.
Good for them!
So you don't have any doubt that it might turn to a military program.
Not in the forseeable future, no.
Doesn't that take a very long time...
I don't think that the 'West', ie. the US should have a monopoly on nuclear power by saying that any country that wants it is going to build weapons...
Well, the US doesn't have a monopoly on nuclear power.
Most European countries have nuclear power programs, and most have nuclear power reactors.
Any country could by nuclear plants and nuclear fuel from US, Europe (mostly Areva), Russia, S. Korea, Canada, China and several others. It would be expected that the users of the nuclear fuel would dispose of the spent fuel directly, or ship it back to the source for disposal or reprocessing/recycling.
The issue is enrichment of UF6, which enables one to enrich natural U (0.7% U-235) to concentrations up to 5% (current upper limit on commercial nuclear fuel) or all the way to weapons grade concentrations > 70%.
Then there is also the matter of production of Pu-239 and the separation/extraction if fuel is reprocessed. The matter of Pu-239 is of considerable concern.
Now here's an idea -
Fund Aims for Central Uranium Supply
Israelis blocked the Sufa again - now with farmers! Look here:
In fact, because Egypt signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (in 1968, and ratified it in 1981), it has the international legal RIGHT to develop peaceful nuclear power, on the condition that it abides to the rules set out by that NPT. So an NPT signatory that abides by those rules has an unalienable right to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
In other words, discussing whether Egypt has the right or not to use peaceful nuclear power is a moot point: it has that unalienable right by signing the NPT - as long as it abides by its rules (declares all its nuclear activities to the IAEA and allows inspections, and will not help others in building nuclear weapons).
But after you occupied Palestine and went to war with all of the Arab nations, what do you expect? the man was at war with you, did you expect him saying "hi guys , welcome, take our lands and make yourself comfortable"
Israel wants to have nuclear monopoly in the ME and it doesn't allow its buildings for inspection but the world doesn't care about that, the world cares about the Evil Iranian nuclear program. Yet, the world does not have a real solid evidence against Iran, but its only the threat that Iran poses to Israel is what the whole world say "Iran must terminate its program" yet no one said or even dared say "Israel should "reconsider" its declared military nuclear program"... Hippocrates.
Israel is one of the 4 nations who didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty: Israel, India and Pakistan. North-Korea actually signed it, violated it and then withdrew although it is disputed whether that's legally possible.
As such, those 4 nations never promised not to make nuclear weapons, and on the down side, are prohibited to any nuclear exchange with the signatories. In other words, if they want to use nuclear power, they have to help themselves. But as long as they do so, this is not forbidden.
The problem with Iran is that it was an NPT signatory, and then violated it (it had secret enrichment plants which it didn't declare to the IAEA).
Also, the United States is quietly helping various Arab allies build up their nuclear programs. This is in response to Iran's push for regional nuclear primacy.
That is the US saying "If you play nice and quiet, we'll throw you a bone"... since those countries are starting the nuclear program inevitably, what's the difference.
I don't think that's the case. I would bet good money that Mubarak got the green light from the Bush Administration before pursuing this. And, if not, the difference is that with American support, it will actually work out and contribute to Egypt's stability and development. To do it against America's wishes would risk too much. The key to all this is Iran: in normal times, Israel would be screaming bloody murder about any nuclear developments in Egypt, and America would be applying lots of pressure to stop it. But Israel, the Arab states and the USA all more concerned about Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas than they are about one another, the stage is set for improved strategic coherence cemented by nuclear infrastructure. Interesting times.
Separate names with a comma.