SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (189915)6/22/2006 9:13:33 AM
From: michael97123  Respond to of 281500
 
It certainly seems that way Nadine but like with NK the hope is that they will trade the nukes for something they value more. I think thats the thrust of Suns argument.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (189915)6/22/2006 9:19:14 AM
From: Sun Tzu  Respond to of 281500
 
None of this is proof and all of it has alternative *and* reasonable explanation.

Take for example the common argument that because Iran has oil, it has no need of nuclear power plants. It misses on two important points. (1) Iran is a large country (I think the Khorasan province alone is larger than France) and most of the population is in the north in mountainous regions. Yet all the oil is almost a thousand miles away in the south-west. Transportation is a real issue. (2) There are much better uses for oil than to burn it for electricity. It just doesn't make economic sense.

On top of this, there has never been an evidence that a bomb is what they are after. So all this hoopla remains just speculation.

Then, nobody has explained why a joint management of the plant and 24x7 monitoring as well as good economic ties that will make it too expensive for Iran to persue the military application is not a viable path. Too much talk about how to stop them from enriching, as if that is the be all and end all of it.

In short you really have to be war hungry to just support the neocons on this.

ST