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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: teevee who wrote (7217)	2/8/2006 7:44:01 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

"Destroying a reactor after it is loaded with fuel and in operation is not an option." Considering the location that would be the best time to strike.

To: teevee who wrote (7217)	2/8/2006 9:21:18 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

Destroying a reactor after it is loaded with fuel and in operation is not an option. Well, I believe this is inevitable since nothing legally prevents Iran from operating a nuclear reactor, especially if the fuel is enriched (and collected) as a result of the Russian proposal. At least there would be some accountability for the fuel that is being used. It's the fact that Iran surreptitiously worked on uranium enrichment without declaring that activity to the IAEA that worries everyone. If they had an open system of monitoring, as all other NPT signators have, then the problem might be containable. However, given Ahmadinejad's psychological profile, it's evident he wants the bomb, not just reactors. Hawk