Blair Endorses Going to U.N. if Iran Proceeds on Nuclear Plan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 12, 2005.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    here we go again?
     
  2. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    I don't think the endorsement of sending it to the UN means that Blair has necessarily made the decision to support US military action. If he does, without the UN Security Council's approval - something that is very unlikely, I think Gordon Brown is the PM within a week. The prospect of which makes this Yank appreciate the virtues of a parliamentary system.
     
  3. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    There's no way in hell he'll do the same thing again.
     
  4. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    With everyones attitude these days i doubt going to the security coucil will mean much. Like they can agree on anything? How can you get this clan to agree on anything when half of them are cheating on prior agreements. As usual someone will have to step up to the plate and stop Irans senselessness.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Question is, who's gonna step up to the plate and stop Bush's senselessness...
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    Time will take care of Bush but its the republicans you need to watch for. The Question is who is going to step up to the plate, England,America, or that fiesty little Isreal. The world doesnt need more nukes and we sure as heck dont need them in Iran. Most of Europe sits idle. China and Russia should be held accountable for the spread of Nukes. They are the ones spreading this tech around. Bet if we cut off China's trade for a month they would get the message.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Well yes and no. Bush will be gone in 3 more years, but the effects of his policies will be felt for many many years. Things like withdrawing from the ABM treaty unilaterally, and allowing the discussion of adding nuclear weapons to the US arsenal while simultaneously demanding others to cease adding any to their arsenal comes across as hypocritical to others.

    Dunno, but I'm willing to allow inspections to be given a chance here. When we had them in NK there was little going on in the way of development, as was also the case in Iraq even if no one in the Bush administration will admit such was the case.
    No, the last thing the world needs is more nukes. In fact it needs less nukes. And who has the most? Right. It would make asking others to stop pursuing nukes a lot easier if we weren't doing the same thing.

    Lol.. the DOW would get a message as well!
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    You're not kidding! Can you say "meltdown"?
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    Mactastic your inspections remark about North Korea is 100% wrong,North Korea was building the bomb right under the inspectors noses. In fact they would work on the bomb when the sole inspector would go home for the day if memory serves. Anyways the tech came from China. Not holding China nor Russia accountable is a mistake. We wouldnt be talking this if China didnt give it to N.Korea just as Russia Shouldnt be giving this technology to Iran. Bush should have jumped in Putins _ _ _ on this one.

    Why dont we just buy some Russian rockets since Nasa is such a mess and tell them not to complete the reactor...........or just buy some American rockets with Iraqs Nuke plant and perhaps a few otherthings as Targets. Doing nothing is not a solution.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    I'm wrong only if you discount the differences between plutonium and uranium. Which of course, you can't. In a nutshell, uranium is very difficult to make into a bomb, requiring years and vast amounts of raw materials. Plutonium OTOH is ready to use 'right out of the box' so to speak. It can be processed into a bomb quickly and relatively efficiently. North Korea was thought to have enough plutonium to make lots and lots of bombs. However, the plutonium processing stopped in 1994. It was not restarted until 2002 when the seals on the plutonium were broken. Plutonium which had been removed from Yongbyon and put in monitored storage under seal. The uranium processing went underground, but was seen as little in the way of a threat as long as an inspections regime could be maintained, which was Clinton's approach. Bush turned all that around and now the North Koreans are thought to produce plutonium weapons because of all the years of isolation.

    As one analyst noted:
    It is much easier to make low-enriched uranium (LEU)--the fuel needed to power light-water plutonium reactors--than it is to make weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU), as Washington has accused Pyongyang of doing. A relatively small number of centrifuges is needed to make LEU, but the production of HEU in quantities sufficient for nuclear weapons requires the continuous operation of hundreds--or thousands--of centrifuges over a long period. Richard Garwin, a respected nuclear scientist, has estimated that 1,300 high-performance centrifuges would have to operate full time for three years to make the 60 kilograms of fissile material needed for a basic ("gun-type") nuclear weapon. Accomplishing that would require an enormous sustained input of electricity, without fluctuation or interruption. Moreover, the operation of a multi-centrifuge "cascade" requires a high-powered motor with a speed twice that of a MiG-21 jet engine. North Korea cannot produce engines even for its Russian-supplied MiGs, and it has only limited, highly unreliable electricity capabilities. It is therefore unlikely that the country is able at present to build or operate the equipment needed, over a long period, to produce weapons-grade uranium.​

    Having inspectors on the ground is the surest way to monitor the nuclear process. It was working nicely in Iraq, sure Saddam was trying to wait out the inspections, but the UN could have kept inspecting him just as long. So it could have been with North Korea. Sure Kim would have kept trying to build a uranium bomb under our noses, and the world community would have worked to thwart him. Instead we got the inspectors tossed out and now he's had years to work on the plutonium program. With little worry of a credible US military threat since we're all tied up in Mess-O-potamia.
     
  11. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #11
    So I guess the question becomes, what's Tony going to do when the SC tells George and him to blow it out their asses? Is he going to follow Bush's lead *again*?
     
  12. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    My guess is that the neocons want Israel to do this dirty work. If the Security Council does not come up with the action authorization that the Bushies want, they will stand aside as Israeli airplanes fly over Iraqi airspace to take out Iranian facilities. It may succeed in destroying Iran's reactors but at what a cost throughout the Arab and Islamic world? If this is really the course of action smiling Tony will nod his approval.
     
  13. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #13
    on the other side as far as i have heard the technology wasn't coming from china directly but from Pakistan (a US allied after all) the same country which exported nuclear technology to Iran as well
     
  14. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #14
    But who gave it to Pakistan? It was China or Russia. Again we wouldnt have some of these problems if it wasnt for the actions of Russia and China. Anyways those non democracies are at the core of the problem. China has says so over N.Korea just as Russia has say so on building Iraqs plant.

    In response to Mactastic remarks about inspectors, we needed them in N.Korea but its way late now. Clinton and Bush have Failed big time on stopping the spread of these things. So here we are with a rogue fanatical country bent on building its bomb with the help of Russia. No Spin, its time we start holding these nations accountable for this. The Root of this problem starts in China and Russia. Are so called friends :rolleyes: Who are they going to give this technology next?
    Israel did the correct thing with Saddams plant and i guess it will be up to them again to do it with Irans plant. Europe sits idle. Guess these clowns didnt learn much from WW1 or WW2. Attitude is let the U.S. take care of it. :cool:
     

Share This Page