News Iran's proposed nuclear plant: electricity generation or weapons grade

[Morbius]

But that will end in disaster for the West. This whole idea of Iran wanting to produce nuclear weapons to attack israel or to be able to defend itself is fundamentally flawed. What happened was that after the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians shelved their plans for nuclear weapons.

Count,

Do you even listen to yourself?

You are excusing the Iranian because they "shelved their plans for nuclear weapons".

They are a non-nuclear weapon state signatory of the NPT - they NEVER SHOULD HAVE
had plans for making nuclear weapons.

You are as bad as someone saying we should let some felon go free and not imprison him because
he gave up murdering people 5 years ago - and now this felon only commits rape and robbery.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

I'm open to suggestions.
What actions do you think should be taken against the USA for it's non-compliance with the NPT? i.e. providing nuclear know-how and equipment to non-signatory nations, proliferating nuclear weapons in non-nuclear countries, and it's failure to dismantle it's nuclear arsenal;

Art,

The USA is PERMITTED to have a nuclear arseanal under the NPT. The USA is one of the five
nuclear weapons states. Now some claim that Article VI of the NPT requires the nuclear five to
dismantle their arsenals. However, as per the terrms of the NPT; namely Artlicle VI; there is a
stated goal of someday having nuclear disarmament. However, it is up to the NPT signatories
in their 5 year conferences to call for that. So far, they have not called for that.

Art, you are just trumpeting your own lack of understanding of the provisions of the NPT when you
make claims that the USA is in violation because it has not dismantled its own nuclear arsenal.

The USA is PERMITTED to have its nuclear arsenal under the NPT - so your claims that the USA
is in violation is just ill-informed, and ill-considered fabrication.

The USA has NOT transferred weapons technology to non-signatory nations. You make the same
ERROR that is typical of many that fabricate claims that the USA in in violation of the NPT. The
NPT forbids the transfer of "weapons usable" technology. There are a bunch of real IDIOTS
out there that think anything nuclear is "weapons useable". But that just demonstrates their
ignorance. For example, the technology that the USA provided to India is not "weapons usable" -
it is technology that allows the more efficient operation of nuclear power plants. However, I'm under
no delusion that some boneheads will think that is "weapons usable" and hence proscribed.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

As the only country to have ever actually used a nuclear weapon in anger I would say there is a lot to fear from America's non-compliance.

Art,

What a bunch of BALONEY!

Art, do you NOT KNOW that the USA used a nuclear weapon in anger against a very intransigent foe
in a war the USA didn't start.

Art, are you not aware that General Kuribayashi - the Japanese military commander on Iwo Jima was
told to make the taking of Iwo Jima as costly as possible for the USA - so that the USA would have
"second thoughts" of attacking the Japanese homeland.

Well, that strategy evidently worked. The USA did have second thoughts at invading the Japanese
homeland. The USA did understand that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would be terribly costly
in both US and Japanese lives. However, unfortunately for the Japanese; the USA had an alternate plan
by utilizing the new weapon it created.

The USA used a nuclear weapon to bring a horrible war to a swift conclusion.

You seem to be one of the many that have lost their moral compass on this issue; you blame the
WRONG people. The Japanese are responsible for the plight of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Those that blame the USA for using a nuclear weapon are like those that blame the State when
an evil murderer is executed, or blame the police for the plight of a felon landing in prison.

It is NOT the fault of the State or the police who are upholding the law. The condemned murderer
or imprisoned felon has ONLY himself to blame.

It seems to be "popular" to IGNORE the culpability of a criminal - be he an individual or a nation -
and when they find themselves facing punishment for their criminal actions - to blame those responsible
to mete out the punishment. Why all the MISPLACED sympathy for those facing the just consequences
of their own criminal or evil actions?

JAPAN is to blame for the plight of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - NOT the USA.

IRAN is responsible for the trouble it is in with the United Nations and the rest of the World.

The USA; even when it had a nuclear monopoly; did NOT act in an irresponsible manner.

I don't know how ANYONE gets the idea that the USA is a threat or should have any fear from the USA.

Just like the only people who should fear the police are not law abiding citizens; but CRIMINALS;
the ONLY nations that should fear the USA are those that are CRIMINALS themselves.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[OmCheeto]

I advocate the use of weapons against another
nation as a last resort to get they to OBEY a TREATY that they VOLUNTARILY SIGNED!

What I find repulsive is people who don't uphold and enforce international laws and treaties.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

So you are saying America should be attacked for it's non-compliance with the NPT and for breaking the ABM Treaty with Russia??

I think he's saying that some animals are more equal than others.

And that we are both illiterate:

Art.
Your confusion is due to your own lack of reading comprehension.

OmCheeto,
Evidently your reading comprehension is flawed!

And Count Iblis is abjectly ignorant?

Count Iblis,
You show your abject IGNORANCE ...

As I predicted, this thread has devolved into a kick Iran debacle.

Unsubscribe

 

[Art]

A good article by Britain's former foreign secretary Robin Cook

America's Broken Nuclear Promises Endanger Us All
Bush has done his utmost to frustrate talks
on the non-proliferation treaty
by Robin Cook, May 27, 2005
extract

Observance of the non-proliferation treaty rested on a bargain between those states without nuclear weapons, who agreed to renounce any ambition to acquire them, and the nuclear-weapon powers, who undertook in return to proceed in good faith to disarmament. It suits the Bush administration now to present the purpose of the treaty as halting proliferation, but its original intention was the much broader ambition of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The acrimonious exchanges inside the present review conference reflect the frustration of the vast majority of states, who believe they have kept their side of the deal by not developing nuclear weapons but have seen no sign that the privileged elite with nuclear weapons have any intention of giving them up.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/27_cook_americas-broken-promises.htm It seems Morbious, he's as ignorant as me, or then again perhaps you should consider the possibility it is you that is out of step.

 

[Art]

The USA is not in violation of the NPT, as per the judgement of the IAEA. And even if it was, that's not what this thread is about - start your own thread about that if you want to discuss it (ie, justify your claim). Such speculation is therefore a diversion from the issue being discussed this thread, intended to derail the thread.

I too wonder why people go to such lengths to defend dictators and terrorists.

Yes the USA is in violation of the NPT but having a veto on the UNSC means they can never be called on it.

It is relevant because I don't want any country to possesses nuclear weapons but so long as the USA and the other elite nuclear nations continue to flout the NPT the more chance there is of other countries saying 'well if they can do it so can we'

I too wonder why people go to such lengths to defend the right of a country, which started a war under false pretences resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, to pass judgement on other countries with no history of aggression.

 

[Art]

Art,

What a bunch of BALONEY!

Art, do you NOT KNOW that the USA used a nuclear weapon in anger against a very intransigent foe
in a war the USA didn't start.

Art, are you not aware that General Kuribayashi - the Japanese military commander on Iwo Jima was
told to make the taking of Iwo Jima as costly as possible for the USA - so that the USA would have
"second thoughts" of attacking the Japanese homeland.

Well, that strategy evidently worked. The USA did have second thoughts at invading the Japanese
homeland. The USA did understand that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would be terribly costly
in both US and Japanese lives. However, unfortunately for the Japanese; the USA had an alternate plan
by utilizing the new weapon it created.

The USA used a nuclear weapon to bring a horrible war to a swift conclusion.

You seem to be one of the many that have lost their moral compass on this issue; you blame the
WRONG people. The Japanese are responsible for the plight of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Those that blame the USA for using a nuclear weapon are like those that blame the State when
an evil murderer is executed, or blame the police for the plight of a felon landing in prison.

It is NOT the fault of the State or the police who are upholding the law. The condemned murderer
or imprisoned felon has ONLY himself to blame.

It seems to be "popular" to IGNORE the culpability of a criminal - be he an individual or a nation -
and when they find themselves facing punishment for their criminal actions - to blame those responsible
to mete out the punishment. Why all the MISPLACED sympathy for those facing the just consequences
of their own criminal or evil actions?

JAPAN is to blame for the plight of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - NOT the USA.

IRAN is responsible for the trouble it is in with the United Nations and the rest of the World.

The USA; even when it had a nuclear monopoly; did NOT act in an irresponsible manner.

I don't know how ANYONE gets the idea that the USA is a threat or should have any fear from the USA.

Just like the only people who should fear the police are not law abiding citizens; but CRIMINALS;
the ONLY nations that should fear the USA are those that are CRIMINALS themselves.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

That's hilarious,

To summarise your argument; the Japanese deserved to be nuked because a) They fought too well and b) For not just rolling over when the USA imposed massive sanctions on them and going to war instead.

And it is comforting to know that the USA only uses nukes when it needs to, to win. Duh!

Btw There is a clause in the NPT allowing signatories to leave the treaty so the analogy with America's breaking of the ABM Treaty is valid but if you'd prefer an example of America breaking a multinational treaty try the Geneva Conventions.

Oh, and when are the US going to enact the additional protocol seeing as how Iran's failure to do so is being touted as a causa bella.

 

[Art]

Art.

Your confusion is due to your own lack of reading comprehension.

I think I've already sufficiently exposed your near complete ignorance of the terms of the NPT. Perhaps we can take this up again when you have had an opportunity to better aquaint yourself with the facts.

to get you started

What kind of technology would India receive in return?

India would be eligible to buy U.S. dual-use nuclear technology, including materials and equipment that could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, potentially creating the material for nuclear bombs. It would also receive imported fuel for its nuclear reactors.
snip
"We are going to be sending, or allowing others to send, fresh fuel to India-including yellowcake and lightly enriched uraniumt-that will free up Indian domestic sources of fuel to be solely dedicated to making many more bombs than they would otherwise have been able to make," says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center,
snip
In 1974, India tested its first nuclear bomb, showing it could develop nuclear weapons with technology transferred for peaceful purposes.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/

 

[Morbius]

I think he's saying that some animals are more equal than others.

OmCheeto,

I don't see any comparison with the Orwellian reference.

We certainly are talking about two DIFFERENT treaties - in both form and provisions.

It's analogous to the difference between criminal law and civil law. In criminal law, we have
crimes defined by laws passed by legislatures or other ruling bodies. In civil law, we have
contracts between individuals.

The NPT is a Treaty under the auspices of the United Nations - and hence is analogous to a
criminal statute. The ABM Treaty is a treaty between TWO individual nations, and is analogous
to a civil contract.

In the case of the ABM Treaty, the ONLY parties involved are the USA and Russia. The UN and
other countries don't have a stake or interest in the ABM Treaty - it is ONLY between the USA and
Russia.

The NPT is like a criminal law - it is overseen by the United Nations - and all UN members and NPT
signatories have a stake or interest in the NPT.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

A good article by Britain's former foreign secretary Robin Cook
It seems Morbious, he's as ignorant as me, or then again perhaps you should consider the possibility it is you that is out of step.

Art,

Or we can have the truth - which is that Robin Cook is "out of step" and factually inaccurate.

First, I don't know why ANYONE would cite something from "wagingpeace" as an authoritative source,
that makes about as much sense as citing an article from "Greenpeace" on the safety of nuclear power -
both "wagingpeace" and "Greenpeace" have their agendas - and they don't let the FACTS get in the way.

Robin Cook is just plain WRONG about the development of nuclear bunker busters. He states that
the Bush admininstration started the research on "nuclear bunker busters" - and that is just plain flat
out WRONG!

The USA has had a nuclear bunker buster in some form in its arsenal for a LONG time. Previous
to 1997, the bunker buster role was given to a nuclear weapon known as the B-53. The B-53 did
not have any Earth penetrating capability - so it had to be a very large yield weapon. It would destroy
a deeply buried bunker - but at great collateral cost to the area around the bunker.

In the 1990s, the US weapons labs proposed an idea to President Clinton. If nuclear devices were
hardened such that they could withstand a ground impact; and could bury themselves a short distance
in the ground; a larger fraction of the explosive yield goes into the ground shock which is what destroys
the bunker. Therefore, for a given strength of ground shock; the explosive yield of the device could be
LOWERED; thus resulting in LESS collateral damage.

So in 1997, the USA introduced a "new" nuclear weapon into its arsenal [ it was actually a modification
of an older weapon as its name shows ] call the B-61 Mod 11. Thus President Clinton ordered the
retirement of the B-53, and its role was assumed by the B-61 Mod 11:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/new_nuclear_weapons/loyieldearthpenwpnrpt.html

The US introduced an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon in 1997, the B61-11, by putting the nuclear
explosive from an earlier bomb design into a hardened steel casing with a new nose cone to provide ground
penetration capability. The deployment was controversial because of official US policy not to develop new
nuclear weapons. The DOE and the weapons labs have consistently argued, however, that the B61-11 is
merely a "modification" of an older delivery system, because it used an existing "physics package."

Many at the time heralded President Clinton - because the US nuclear arsenal would now cause less
collateral damage. After all, we are really interested in taking out the military bunker and the military
commanders within - we shouldn't have to obliterate the surrounding cities full of civillians.

However, as the above report also states, the Earth penetrating capability of the B61-11 is limited:

The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20
feet or so into dry Earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the
ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock
compared to a surface bursts.

The B61-11 is better in terms of collateral damage than the B53; but the weapons labs could do better.
Hence, the Clinton Administration launched a design study called RNEP - Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator. This was applauded by the Democrats in the US Congress.

In 2001, when President Bush became President, he desired that the Clinton-fostered RNEP program
continue. It wasn't until the 2004 campaign, when John Kerry made an issue of this that the
Democrats turned 180 degrees on this program.

So many ill-informed and ignorant people attribute the Earth penetrating nuclear bunker buster to Bush.
Again, that just shows how ignorant and ill-informed they are. The genesis and early support of the
earth penetrating nuclear bunker buster flows from the Clinton Administration.

The motive was to reduce collateral damage - nuclear weapons can be designed so that they don't
have to kill any more people than is necessary.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

:
To summarise your argument; the Japanese deserved to be nuked because a) They fought too well and b) For not just rolling over when the USA imposed massive sanctions on them and going to war instead.

Art,

In essence; yes - and I see nothing hilarious or illogical about that.

You're the one with what must be a perverted sense of humor.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Btw There is a clause in the NPT allowing signatories to leave the treaty so the analogy with America's breaking of the ABM Treaty is valid

Art,

Again your confustion and faulty understanding is due to your lack of reading comprehension.

If you would read the legal reasoning in the link to Stanford University I posted above; you would
see that they are different.

Both the NPT and the ABM treaty contain "opt out" clauses - but they are NOT the same.

The NPT treaty requires the party that wants to withdraw to present their case to the United Nations
Security Council. That is NOT true for the ABM Treaty. Show me where the opt out clause of
the ABM Treaty requires the withdrawing nation to go to the Security Council.

Do you have the intellect to understand the difference between criminal and civil law? Can you
understand the difference between a criminal statute and a civil contract? Then you should be
able to understand the difference between the NPT and ABM treaties - and why Iran VIOLATED
the former and the USA did NOT VIOLATE the latter.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

I think I've already sufficiently exposed your near complete ignorance of the terms of the NPT.

Art.

You've done NO SUCH THING!

From your previous post #56, you in essence state that you are a "nuclear abolitionist".

Like many nuclear abolitionists that I have debated - you don't adhere to the factual interpretations
of treaties and laws - you put your own "spin" on them so that they favor the case you want to make.

I abhor the "intellectual dishonesty" that in inherent in such "spinning" - I don't see how
intelligent people can engage in such intellectual dishonesty. However, I've probably just answered my
own question.

I've truthfully stated the differences between the NPT and the ABM. I've tried to explain the difference
through analogy. I've pointed you to authoritative sources on the meaning of treaties like the
CISAC at Stanford.

You've done nothing but post your own ill-informed opinions and the biased opinion pieces from
activist groups like "wagingpeace" which are NOT AUTHORITATIVE on this issue.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Yes the USA is in violation of the NPT but having a veto on the UNSC means they can never be called on it.

Art,

WHEN has the UNSC EVER taken up the issue of the USA being in violation of the NPT, and the
majority of the UNSC voted to hold the USA in violation - but the USA used its veto power.

Are there any limits to the depths of your abject DISHONESTY??

You just FABRICATE excuses and events - because you have NOTHING in your quiver.

Like many "nuclear abolitionists" that I have encountered; you are so self-absorbed in your
own self-righteousness that you don't see the world as it is.

We are dealing with treaties and laws that have real meanings - and just because those meanings
are not to your liking - you don't get to change the meanings and the facts. You're not that important.
Get over it and deal with reality.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

It is relevant because I don't want any country to possesses nuclear weapons but so long as the USA and the other elite nuclear nations continue to flout the NPT the more chance there is of other countries saying 'well if they can do it so can we'

Art,

NOT when they agreed NOT TO - and in return received data and technology from us.

If they want to have nuclear weapons; then they should NOT have signed the NPT.

The USA and the other nuclear 5 do NOT have to put up with "back-stabbing" nations
that break their word. We do not have to put up with being threatened by OUR OWN
technology.

You may be a "nuclear abolitionist" - but if we removed nuclear weapons from all nations;
we'd only make the world "safe" again for large scale conventional conflict like World War I
and World War II.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Btw There is a clause in the NPT allowing signatories to leave the treaty so the analogy with America's breaking of the ABM Treaty is valid

Art,

The analogy is NOT valid - because the wording of the two clauses are different. You're like the
people I debate with regard to nuclear power - they "think" [ term used loosely ] that " a nuke is a
nuke is a nuke is a nuke". They see ZERO difference between a US LWR power reactor and the
Chernobyl reactor. It's all the same to them - they are such limited SHALLOW thinkers.

Well just as there are fundamental differences between an LWR and the Chernobyl RBMK; there
are fundamental differences betweein the opt out clauses of the two trieaties. The ABM treaty
does not require the USA to go to the UN Security Council for permission. The UN is NOT
INVOLVED in the ABM treaty.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

When the USA terminated the ABM treaty; many said that the whole arms control regime would come
tumbling down like a house of cards. Well they were FLAT OUT WRONG! In fact, AFTER the USA
terminated the ABM Treaty in 2001, the USA went on to negotiate an ADDITIONAL arms control treaty;
the Moscow Treaty of 2002.

Unlike previous treaties, like SALT and START; the Moscow Treaty of 2002 is more akin to the
Reagan / Gorbachev Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty of 1987. Only these latter treaties actually
call for the elimination of some nuclear weapons - instead of maintaining the "status quo" as do the former.

Additionally, we somewhat recently saw the fruits of the US termination of the ABM treaty. In 1979,
when the US space station Skylab crashed to Earth - it was an uncontrolled descent. NASA didn't
have control of the doomed space station; and we could only just hope that it crashed somewhere
benign. Given that the planet surface is about 75% ocean - that is a good bet - but Skylab actually
did crash to the ground. Fortunately, it was in a low population density part of Australia.

Early in 2008, the insertion of a US spy satellite into stable Earth orbit failed; and the large spy satellite
was doomed to an uncontrolled return to Earth. In February 2008, a US Navy Missile Cruiser using
technology that could not have been developed under an intact ABM Treaty, successfully shot down
the errant satellite ending fears of a crash:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4249458.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4251430.html

Given the successful shootdown of the errant satellite, coupled with the absence of the failing of the
US / Russia arms control regime; I think those that were opposed to the US withdrawl from the
ABM Treaty really have "egg all over their faces"

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Art]

Morbious I'll keep this real simple for you.

Has the US entered into meaningful negotiations for halting nuclear weapons research and for complete nuclear disarmament as required under Article VI of the NPT?

Answer NO

Has the US proliferated nuclear weapons through sharing agreements with non-nuclear allied countries in violation of Article I and II?

Answer YES

Has the US contracted to supply nuclear material and know-how to non-NPT signatories such as India in violation of the non proliferation treaty?

Answer YES

Has the US failed to implement the provisions of the NPT additional protocols, performance against which it measures Iran's compliance?

Answer YES

Does of all of this reek of hypocrisy from the 'might is right' school of diplomacy?

Answer YES

I won't accuse you of dishonesty, as you did me, as I try not to be as rude as you are on this forum and so I will allow it is your genuine inability to understand these simple points that leads you to spout nonsense.

I do take exception to you claiming I have invented facts as that is a quintessential example of transference. For example it was you who misinformed another poster that Iran was in violation of the NPT because it did not allow open-ended, unchecked inspections. I am simply tidying up behind you redressing your errors.

With regard to America breaking treaties I suggest you check out the UN Charter Article 2 ss 1, 2, 3 and 4; the Geneva Conventions which I've already referenced; and you can throw in the numerous broken treaties with the indigenous American people.

hint - Your signature at the end of each of your posts does not convey what I suspect you think it conveys; far from it.

 

[Art]

Art,

The analogy is NOT valid - because the wording of the two clauses are different. You're like the
people I debate with regard to nuclear power - they "think" [ term used loosely ] that " a nuke is a
nuke is a nuke is a nuke". They see ZERO difference between a US LWR power reactor and the
Chernobyl reactor. It's all the same to them - they are such limited SHALLOW thinkers.

Well just as there are fundamental differences between an LWR and the Chernobyl RBMK; there
are fundamental differences betweein the opt out clauses of the two trieaties. The ABM treaty
does not require the USA to go to the UN Security Council for permission. The UN is NOT
INVOLVED in the ABM treaty.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

When the USA terminated the ABM treaty; many said that the whole arms control regime would come
tumbling down like a house of cards. Well they were FLAT OUT WRONG! In fact, AFTER the USA
terminated the ABM Treaty in 2001, the USA went on to negotiate an ADDITIONAL arms control treaty;
the Moscow Treaty of 2002.

Unlike previous treaties, like SALT and START; the Moscow Treaty of 2002 is more akin to the
Reagan / Gorbachev Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty of 1987. Only these latter treaties actually
call for the elimination of some nuclear weapons - instead of maintaining the "status quo" as do the former.

Additionally, we somewhat recently saw the fruits of the US termination of the ABM treaty. In 1979,
when the US space station Skylab crashed to Earth - it was an uncontrolled descent. NASA didn't
have control of the doomed space station; and we could only just hope that it crashed somewhere
benign. Given that the planet surface is about 75% ocean - that is a good bet - but Skylab actually
did crash to the ground. Fortunately, it was in a low population density part of Australia.

Early in 2008, the insertion of a US spy satellite into stable Earth orbit failed; and the large spy satellite
was doomed to an uncontrolled return to Earth. In February 2008, a US Navy Missile Cruiser using
technology that could not have been developed under an intact ABM Treaty, successfully shot down
the errant satellite ending fears of a crash:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4249458.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4251430.html

Given the successful shootdown of the errant satellite, coupled with the absence of the failing of the
US / Russia arms control regime; I think those that were opposed to the US withdrawl from the
ABM Treaty really have "egg all over their faces"

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

tut tut more disinformation that needs to be corrected.

The fall out from America's abandonment of the ABM Treaty is happening right now in Poland with Russia threatening to deploy short range nuclear missiles pointed at Poland in response to America's deployment of anti-missile missiles in the area.

And to justify America's abandonment of the ABM Treaty by claiming the shooting down of a spy satellite, to prevent the possibility of sensitive information and optics technology falling into the hands of a possible competitor, was an act of universal charity is so ludicrous I'm surprised you weren't cringing with embarrassment as you typed it.

The SORT treaty of 2002 you are touting as a success is a joke. It limits the DEPLOYMENT numbers of nuclear missiles without any verification procedures and does absolutely nothing regarding the number of nuclear war heads which can be held in storage awaiting deployment. To cite this as a success emanating from the abandonment of the ABM Treaty shows you evidently have absolutely no clue as to the treaty's contents.

 

[Morbius]

Has the US entered into meaningful negotiations for halting nuclear weapons research and for complete nuclear disarmament as required under Article VI of the NPT?

Answer NO

Art,

Because the USA is NOT REQUIRED to do so. Article VI of the NPT does NOT require and never
did require an immediate negotiation for nuclear disarmament.

It is only brain-dead "nuclear abolitionists" that maintain that view. The United Nations, the signatories
of the NPT, ... know that nuclear disarmament is NOT an immediate requirement.

As I stated previously, it is up to the signatories of the NPT to invoke Article VI - and they have
not done so.

You are confused by your own ill-informed interpretation of Artile VI; so why do you persist in the
intellectual DISHONESTY of saying that Article VI requires the USA to do something that
Article VI doesn't say the USA has to do.

Article VI is an expression of a future goal - NOT a current requirement of the NPT.

As I stated, only brain-dead nuclear abolitionists persist in their faulyt interpretation of Article VI.

I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to join the ranks of the braindead nuclear abolitionists.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

t
And to justify America's abandonment of the ABM Treaty by claiming the shooting down of a spy satellite, to prevent the possibility of sensitive information and optics technology falling into the hands of a possible competitor, was an act of universal charity is so ludicrous I'm surprised you weren't cringing with embarrassment as you typed it.

The concern was NOT over the sensitive technology - the computer chips and optics would have
never survived the reentry - you blithering MORON!

The concern was that many tons of mass were going to come raining down on the surface of the planet

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

I won't accuse you of dishonesty, as you did me, as I try not to be as rude as you are on this forum and so I will allow it is your genuine inability to understand these simple points that leads you to spout nonsense.

I do take exception to you claiming I have invented facts as that is a quintessential example of transference.

Art,

You just did it again above. You ASSERT violations - but NEVER CITE anything.

Give me an example of where you think [ term used loosely ] that the US violated the NPT.
I'll show you that the USA abided by the concrete terms of the NPT - it just didn't abide by
"your interprestion" of the NPT. But your interpretation is not authoritative nor definitive.

Like the braindead "nuclear abolitionists" - you "spin" the interpetation to your own liking - and
make assertions based on that.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Art]

Art,

I can't refrain any longer - you are just PLAIN STUPID!

The concern was NOT over the sensitive technology - the computer chips and optics would have
never survived the reentry - you blithering MORON!

The concern was that many tons of mass were going to come raining down on the surface of the planet

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Could you explain to a moron why if the optics and chips were going to be vaporised on re-entry why the rest of the satellite wasn't? Despite the intelligence sensitive equipment being for the most part in the most protected core of the satellite especially as glass has a melting point nearly 300 - 500 degrees C greater than steel. I'd really like to see you vaporising a piece of coal wrapped in paper whilst leaving the paper intact.

you know, I find there are two kinds of stupid in the world.

Those that know they are stupid and try to improve themselves and those that are so stupid they actually think they are clever and everybody else is stupid.

You can normally spot the latter because they tend to add imperious looking signatures to the rubbish they spout vainly hoping this will compensate for their shockingly poor content and perilously low IQ.

NPT Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The treaty came into force in 1970, it is now 2008. Has the US and the other nuclear elite fulfilled their obligations? Only an idiot would claim they have.

 

[Morbius]

For example it was you who misinformed another poster that Iran was in violation of the NPT because it did not allow open-ended, unchecked inspections. I am simply tidying up behind you redressing your errors.

Art,

Iran's LACK of transparency was one of the key reasons cited by the IAEA when it REPORTED
Iran to the Security Council for VIOLATION of the NPT:

Courtesy of the Center for Defense Information's International Security Law Project:

http://www.cdi.org/news/law/iran-iaea-020206.cfm

Delays in referral have, in the past, been accompanied by diplomatic efforts spearheaded by the EU-3,
Britain, France and Germany, including the 2004 Paris Agreement calling for greater Iranian transparency,
and under which Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, but which Iran now is breaching.


http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-11-27-voa57.cfm

Courtesy of the Federation of American Scientists:

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf

Courtesy of the Institute for Science and International Security:

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irannptviolations.pdf

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Cyrus]

This is a great debate, don't lock it!

 

[Morbius]

you know, I find there are two kinds of stupid in the world.

Those that know they are stupid and try to improve themselves and those that are so stupid they actually think they are clever and everybody else is stupid.

You can normally spot the latter because they tend to add imperious looking signatures to the rubbish they spout vainly hoping this will compensate for their perilously low IQ.

NPT Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Art,

That is the early wording of Article VI - but you need to go to the proceedings of 5 year conferences
of the NPT signatories to get their interpretation! The NPT signatories at their 5 year conferences
have stated that the time for complete nuclear disarmament IS NOT at hand.

Article VI remains a goal for the future - but is NOT a current requirement.

Do you have enough intellect to know the differrence between a "goal" and a "requirement"?

As far as my signature - that is provided automatically by my Linux system working with the
bulletin board software. My home Linux machine contains the same ".signature" file as the
Linux computer that I have at work. That's a convenience. My .signature file contains my
name and title "Physicist" and there are two additional lines that contain my employer's name.
However, the Forum software evidently only captures the first two lines. I don't see why my
name and title should be of any concern in this discussion.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Pyrrhus]

This is a great debate, don't lock it!

Hahaha, hey bro!. I am following this discussion, too.

I think Morbius should get out of the Nuclear Engineering forum more often.

 

[Morbius]

Could you explain to a moron why if the optics and chips were going to be vaporised on re-entry why the rest of the satellite wasn't?

Art,

Because MORON - I NEVER SAID that the chips and optics were going to be "vaporized"

Both heat and impact would make the chips and optics useless.

They were going to be heated to a level in which the chips would not retain their information;
and the ultra-fine polished lenses would NOT retain their ultra-fine polish. Therefore, the
recovery of coding from the chips or highly polished lenses was not at issue.

But I did NOT say "vaporized". They would be damaged - and hence useless - but NOT
vaporized. We would still have TONS of mass raining down on to the surface.

If there had been people and homes under Skylab - they could have been killed or injured.

This is the typical "strawman" argument. I said the chips and optics "would not survive"
and you infer this means "vaporized". Just as you misread the NPT Treaty - you MISREAD
my postings and "spin" them to your own uses.

I abhor such intellectual DISHONESTY and STUPIDITY

Deal with my words as I have written them - NOT as you would have liked them to be written.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Hahaha, hey bro!. I am following this discussion, too.

I think Morbius should get out of the Nuclear Engineering forum more often.

Cycovenom,

I think I'll go back to the Nuclear Engineering forum - I don't like dealing with people
who "think" with their politics instead of their brains.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Count Iblis]

...under which Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, but which Iran now is breaching.

This is symptomatic of the attitude of the West. Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment temporarily while negotiations with the EU-3 were going on. Iran made it clear numerous times during that period that they would never agree to a permanent suspension of enrichement. They were negotiating about measures to reassure the West that their nuclear program was not for weapons. The suspension was a temporary confidence building measure.

Then in the spring of 2005, the EU-3 was supposed to come up with a proposal. They didn't. Iran then asked the EU-3 when they were going to coime up with the proposals. The EU-3 said that it would take untoil the summer. After a lot of footdragging (presumably this involved the US Neo-Cons making modifications to the EU-3 plans, taking out any proposals that wpould allow Iran to have an enrichment capability no matter how well scritinized etc. etc. , the EU-3 came up with their now infamous "incentives" offer under which Iran has to sign away their right to process their own uranium.

The moment that final proposal was made, the negotiations were over. Iran could either accept it or not accept it (they didn't accept it). But what should have been clear to anyone was that Iran was no longer bound by any agreement to suspend uranium enrichment.

If Iran were breaching something by enriching uranium at that point, then that could only be the case if Iran would already have agreed to permanently suspend enrichment, because the negotiations failed and still the US and Britain were saying that Iran is in breach of an agreement. But if that were true, then any negotiations about suspension were redundant. So, that's a contradiction.


We then have to ask why you can have an official statement in 2005 by the US and British governments saying that:

...under which Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, but which Iran now is breaching.

CLearly this illogical statement was meant for to mislead the US and British public who mostly don't follow this issue closely. The message they remember is that their government is saying that "Iran is in breach of some treaty regarding nuclear matters". And "nuclear" sounds scary. Then we all know about Ahmadinejad who said that the Israeli state will crumble which is deliberately mistranslated as "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map".


So, it is very clear that the US and British governments have been telling lies to mislead the public.

 

[Art]

Art,

Because MORON - I NEVER SAID that the chips and optics were going to be "vaporized"

Both heat and impact would make the chips and optics useless.

They were going to be heated to a level in which the chips would not retain their information;
and the ultra-fine polished lenses would NOT retain their ultra-fine polish. Therefore, the
recovery of coding from the chips or highly polished lenses was not at issue.

But I did NOT say "vaporized". They would be damaged - and hence useless - but NOT
vaporized. We would still have TONS of mass raining down on to the surface.

If there had been people and homes under Skylab - they could have been killed or injured.

This is the typical "strawman" argument. I said the chips and optics "would not survive"
and you infer this means "vaporized". Just as you misread the NPT Treaty - you MISREAD
my postings and "spin" them to your own uses.

I abhor such intellectual DISHONESTY and STUPIDITY

Deal with my words as I have written them - NOT as you would have liked them to be written.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Dr Strangelove err Greenman - Are you really so daft you thought I meant someone would just pick them up, plug them in and use them

This may astonish you but even damaged components would yield very valuable design information. Far more valuable than any transient information the chips contained. As a simple example an examination of the lens even if broken would allow someone to a) copy them and b) know to what resolution the spy satellite can 'see' and so if a moron can see why the US gov't would want to make sure this satellite was completely destroyed whilst a genius like you can't... well doesn't this tell you something??

Methinks you have been standing too close to one of your reactors for too long

 

[Art]

Art,

Iran's LACK of transparency was one of the key reasons cited by the IAEA when it REPORTED
Iran to the Security Council for VIOLATION of the NPT:

The IAEA's impartiality has been seriously compromised through pressure from the US both indirectly through general political pressure on it's trading partners and directly by threatening to take action against Iran itself if the IAEA didn't do it's bidding. The US even tried to have IAEA Director Mohammad El Baradei fired since which he's been very supportive of whatever he is told to support.

As I've already stated Iran is being measured against it's non-compliance with the additional protocol. You know, that one the US refuses to comply with.. Yes the very same one Iran was voluntarily working to until they were told they still weren't going to be allowed to pursue their legal right to enrich uranium.

To put things in perspective Iran fell foul of the IAEA because in 1991 it failed to report the importation of 0.13 kilograms of effective uranium. This came to light in 2003 when Iran itself declared the material to the IAEA claiming they had misinterpreted a clause in the safeguards agreement back in 1991 which they thought meant only effective uranium imports of 1 kilogram or more needed to be reported. Art 95 of the safeguards agreement required advance notice to be issued of all imports of effective uranium greater than 1 kg. The IAEA informed Iran the advance notice was an additional requirement and that all nuclear imports should have been reported. The IAEA also complained that Iran had not reported subsequent work done on this material. Iran's defence was the US's 'illegal' embargo, in operation since the overthrow of the US appointed dictator the Shah, had prevented them from accessing equipment through regular channels and had forced them to procure supplies instead from back channel sources which they could hardly then report without burning their source.

All the nonsense about undeclared additional facilities etc are just that - nonsense. Under the general safeguards agreement operating at the time Iran was under no obligation to declare any facility until 180 days before the receipt of nuclear material into it and under no obligation ever to declare heavy water production facilities. As neither of the plants in question at that time had any nuclear material this was a total red herring thrown out to the media to suggest Iran was in breach of the NPT with a 'secret' program. Never-the-less Iran did in 2003 sign the amended safeguard agreement and since then has reported all new facilities at the design stage.

It was at this point Iran also agreed, as a so called confidence building measure, to work voluntarily to the provisions of the additional protocol. They continued to do so until sanctions were imposed, although even now they still allow the IAEA greater access than the general safeguards agreement calls for.

Here's a copy of a letter sent by the IAEA to the Republican Chairman of the House of Representatives which whilst largely self-serving also debunks some of the more outrageous claims being made about Iran;

The Honourable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405 The Caitol
Washington, DC 20515
U.S.A.

2006-09-12

Sir,

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Staff Report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy, date 23 August 2006, entitled “Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States”, contains some erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information.

The caption under the photograph of the Natanz site on page 9 of the report states that “ Iran is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade using a 164-machine centrifuge cascade”. In this regard, please be informed that information about the uranium enrichment work being carried out at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP_ at Natanz, including the 3.6% enrichment level that had been achieved by Iran, was provided to the IAEA Board of Governors by the Director General in April 2006 (see GOV/2006/27. paragraph 31). The description of this enrichment level as “weapons grade” is incorrect, since the term “weapons-grade” is commonly used to refer to uranium enriched to the order of 60% or more in the isotope of uranium-235. The Director General’s April 2006 report, as well as all of his other reports on the implementation of the safeguards in Ira, are posted on the IAEA’s website at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran .

The first bullet on page 10 states that “ Iran had covertly produced the short-lived radioactive element polonium-210 (Po-210), a substance with two known uses; a neutron source for a nuclear weapon and satellite batteries”. The use of the phrase “covertly produced” is misleading because the production of Po-210 is not required to be reported by Iran to the IAEA under the NPT safeguards agreement concluded between Iran and the IAEA (published in IAEA document INFCIRC/214). (Regarding the production of Po-210, please refer to the report provided to the Board of Governors by the Director General in November 2004 (GOV/2004/83, paragraph 80)).

Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion in the Staff Report’s second full paragraph of page 13 that the Director General of the IAEA decided to “remove” Mr. Charlier, a senior safeguards inspector of the IAEA, for “allegedly raising concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program and concluding that the purposed of Iran’s nuclear programme is to construct weapons”. In addition, the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for “not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy baring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program”.

In this regard, please be advised that all safeguards agreements concluded between a State and the IAEA in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons require the IAEA to secure acceptance by the State of the designation of IAEA safeguards inspectors, before such inspectors may be sent to the State on inspection (INFCIRC/153 (Corr.), paragraphs 9 and 85). Under such agreements, each State has the right to object to the designation of any safeguards inspector, and to request the withdrawal of the designation of an inspector, at any time, for that State (http:www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs). Accordingly, Iran’s request to the Director General to withdraw the designation of Mr. Charlier authorizing him to carry out safeguards inspection in Iran, was based on paragraph (a)(i) of Article 9 and paragraph (d) of Article 85 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. I should also like to note here that Iran has accepted the designation of more than 200 Agency safeguards inspectors, which number is similar to that accepted by the majority of non-nuclear-weapon States that have concluded safeguards agreements pursuant to the NPT.

Finally, it is regrettable that the Staff Report did not take into account the views of the United Nations Security Council, as expressed in resolution 1996 (2006), which inter alia, “commends and encourages the Director General fo the IAEA and its secretariat for the ongoing professional and impartial efforts to resolve all remaining outstanding issues in Iran within the framework of the Agency”.

While it is unfortunate that the authors of the Staff Report did not consult with the IAEA Secretariat to verify the correctness of the above referenced information, the IAEA Secretariat stands ready to assist your Committee in correcting the erroneous and misleading information contained in the report.

Yours

Vilmos Cserveny
Director
Office of External Relations and Policy Coordination

 

[mheslep]

... and it's failure to dismantle it's nuclear arsenal...

A good article by Britain's former foreign secretary Robin Cook
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/27_cook_americas-broken-promises.htm ...

The US has indeed been dismantling its nuclear arsenal, declining now to less than a 1/3 of the cold war peak. The Bush administration has continued the process with further reduction plans, announcing unilaterally that the 2004 levels would be cut in half by 2012.

The 2012 stockpile of 5,000+ warheads represent a significant reduction from the 24,000 warhead stockpile of the 1980s (and the all-time high of 32,000 warheads in 1966)

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php

I fail to see how this could in any way be seen as a failure to comply with the 'undertakes to pursue' disarmament language of the NPT's article VI.

 

[Evo]

It is ok to attack a person's argument or opinion, but personal attacks are not allowed. I have not had time to moderate this thread today, so it is closed until I have time to do so.