Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (158584)	2/28/2005 9:34:14 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I know that but nuclear fuel that in the end is going to result in enriched uranium of weapons grade? In the long run, the heavy water reactor gives them a capability of becoming a nuclear fuel supplier. They can sell nuclear fuel to other countries. Don't you think that will destabilize the region and throw off the balance of power? I hear lots of claims about destabilization, very few of them are ever supported. Pretending for a moment that Iran has a nuclear capability, Iran and Israel are stabilized under the MAD concept. You blow us up, we'll blow you up. Quadifi said he gave up persuing nukes for a number of reasons. One was that he couldn't use them. If he did, he was sure that his country would be wiped off the face of the earth. BTW, another was that he preferred to have oil contracts with American companies rather than French companies...he could get a better deal from American companies. Pakistan already has them and with the way governments come and go in that region it scares the hell out of me. I'm a proponent of getting the damn things off the planet. But we're not even thinking of that strategy. Rather we're picking and choosing who can have them and be "responsible" nuclear powers. Pakistan and India are "responsible", even though they were on the verge of an exchange a couple of years ago. We think Israel is "responsible". Why anyone would think that's a view shared in the Arab world escapes me. Russia says they don't believe that Iran was nuclear weapon ambitions. I fully expect that Russia has better intel on Iran than we do. [They have in country presence]. Bush says you can believe Putin. Even if you don't necessarily believe Putin would tell the truth, they wouldn't be keen on one of their neighbors having nukes. I don't have all the answers and we're not perfect but there comes a time when we have to start calling a spade a spade. How about if we just have a real good hunch that they desire a WMD capability to become a regional power? Is that good enough to stop them? How many people are we allowed to kill based on a hunch? Can we kill as many as we want if we don't count the casualities? they have all the energy they need below them. There are people other than Iranians that don't believe that oil is in infinite supply. US oil production is at a 50 year low. jttmab