Russia and Iran agree nuclear power station timetable - Yahoo! News Russia and Iran agree nuclear power station timetable MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and Iran have settled all differences over the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power station and agreed on a time-table for its completion, the Russian contractor building the station said on Thursday. "We have resolved all the problems with the Iranians," said Sergei Shmatko, president of Atomstroiexport. "We have agreed with our Iranian colleagues a timeframe for completing the plant and we will make an announcement at the end of December." Russia's role in building the Bushehr plant on the Gulf is at the centre of a diplomatic dispute. Western powers, which suspect Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapon, have pressed Moscow to drop the project. Tehran says its nuclear program is exclusively intended to generate electricity and Moscow has dismissed concerns the Bushehr project would hand Iran sensitive technology that could help in a bomb-making program. Russia had earlier suspended construction at Bushehr, saying Iran had failed to make payments for the work. Some observers say Moscow has been wary of the diplomatic outcry that could result when it delivers nuclear fuel to Bushehr. Shmatko said the delivery of fuel -- after which the plant can begin operating within six months -- would go ahead, though he did not reveal details of the timetable. "We absolutely, definitely intend to build the Bushehr atomic power station and intend definitely to deliver the fuel to the plant," said Shmatko. *** For an assessment of why this means war read this: Captain's Quarters Now my own assessment. Basically Israel is terrified that Iran will get nuclear bombs and either use them itself or give them to Hamas or Hezbollah. Israel is small enough and has enough enemies that if it is hit with a nuke, the country is dead. If a single medium size nuke goes off within Israel, a large part of its population, infrastructure and military will be wiped out. Israel also has enough enemies, either actual countries or large terrorist organizations that they would be attacked almost immediately if a nuke knocked it on its ass. Throughout most of its history Israel has approved of preemptive strikes. When it hasn't it has almost always led to bad things happening to Israel. If they wait until the Russians have delivered the nuclear fuel to attack they will spread radioactive waste throughout Iran and into neighbouring countries. Unless it is in an actual state of war that would turn every ally Israel has against it. If they wait and hope Iran doesn't build nuclear weapons they could suddenly find mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv. So a lot of Israelis will probably consider a preemptive strike and damn the consequences the only real option. Whether the government agrees is another matter. Looking at recent history makes a preemptive strike seem more likely. Israel took out Iraq's nuclear capabilities in Osirak in 1981. Two months ago it destroyed Syria's attempt at nuclear technology (debatable but a lot of evidence points in that direction). A lot of Israeli politicians and military are probably willing to risk a war to keep Iran from getting nukes. Before this deal was signed, Israel was willing to wait and see. Now its come down to basically now or never. Whoever is living in the Middle East right now, good luck.
This is big news. I don't have anything to add that you haven't already said. I was reading up on this recently and was hoping a deal wouldn't be made. The main reason: I have a friend who is about to go spend a year in Israel. Oh ... dear ... god. If Israel does attempt a preemptive strike, what will the consequences be? Will that in itself create a war?
Me and my friends at collage have been following this very closely, The U.S. and Britian have been pritty silly in the whole affear. I do not want a war with Russia, but the way things are going, it might just hit the fan! And that's not good for me, I'm at the age of consription.
My friends son just joined the Canadian Military. He is younger than Dom by a few years and this is not what she would want to hear with her baby involved. I know he isn't a baby but only 19, I think. It will not be a relaxing time for the next while. Mothers and grandmothers should run the world.
Russia has been pushing the U.S. not to build its missle shield in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised to see the missle shield being constructed for sure now that Russia is going to continue to help Iran. Russia doesn't want the missle shield because if they (Russia) decide to attack another country, as soon as their missles leave the silos the missle shield will detect them and shoot them down. The only other way around it for Russia, is to tell the U.S. of their plans to attack another country, and not have the missles shot down. If Iran does build a reactor, hopefully it will meltdown before they can construct weapons grade material.
I'm confused by this shield, who is Russia going to be attacking that would be in its benefit to do so? I understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons. If I was running a nation and the US started to make threats, and putting me in its 'axis of evil', then invaded a neighbouring country with the purpose of regime change, and i knew that i couldn't defend myself militarily i'd want a nuclear weapon, because then they would have to deal with me differently. Look at North Korea after it got a nuke...
The missle shield is basically missles placed in European countries, and will be used strictly as a defensive shield for Europe. If a missle is launched towards (in or around) Europe, the missle system detects the missle launch and fires a missle at the incoming (launched) missle in hopes of destroying it before it hits its target. If the missle shield is going to be installed, it will be housed in Czech Republic and Poland. Neither country has signed off on it yet. Poland is trying to strengthen its ties to Moscow, and is waiting until after its elections before deciding. As for Russia, if the missle shield is put into place and for some unforeseeable reason Russia decides to launch a missle, whether in a preemptive or retaliatory strike, the missle shield will shoot down their missles as soon as they leave their silo. So once in place, Russia would have to notify its European counterparts, if they chose to launch a missle. Russia doesn't want the missle shield for that very reason. If they do choose to launch a missle, they don't want to clear it with anyone. The missle shield is more of a defense for Europe than it is for the U.S. North Korea and Iran don't have missles capable of hitting the continental U.S., but do have missles capable of hitting Europe. Hence it being put in Europe to protect the U.S. allies. As for Iran wanting a nuclear weapon due to the U.S. putting them into the 'Axis of Evil' catagory, then you mistaken. Iran has been put into the 'Axis of Evil' catagory because for years it has been threating its neighbors, not because the U.S. is a bully. If given a chance Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel, just as Domoviye has stated in his post. This is common knowledge.
The one thing that upsets me in these events and it upsets me becaue I have seen this with my own eyes and I have lived through it. Everyone forgets the children. Everyone forgets those brave human beings who carry no guns. Everyone forgets the harm done. Because the world leaders decide to go to war. Because the world leaders want to be richer Because the world leaders care nothing for those that will become victims. I'll tell you something. When your driving by on a warrior and you come to a full stop and look across the road and see dead children who are no older than seven years old dead it hurts to close your eyes at night. What hurts in some cases you can't even move them because they have been booby trapped. It hurts to leave those places because for a while afterwoods you don't want to close your eyes. Because when you do you see them. Even now I still shed a tear for what I have seen. It upsets me to know more of those everyone forgets will die. We remember the soldiers because they fight for the flag and queen. But everyone forgets the children and the brave men and women that do not carry guns or weapons. Even I know this must happen to stop those that would abuse the power. But it still hurts. I have seen things that I just don't want to share with those that haven't seen. When your watching the news and eating your meals and drinking coffee Just think that it will effect you but how does it effect those that feel the pain. It saddens me. Things like christmas mean alot to me because I make it my mission to give my kids a good christmas. One day will come when we go to far. Then we will all suffer like those that you hear about. Lest We Forget.
Every day we get closer to the precipice, and all that happens is that people rave louder, "we're going over the edge". Still, no on tries to stop it. We just keep on over the cliff, like the stupid lemmings we are...
Raven, not everyone forgets the children. Mothers all over the world try and protect their own and wish there was some way to move all the children no matter race creed or colour to a safe place where they can be children. No we don't forget them. We dream about them and pray to what ever entity is watching to save the children from the insane adults.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the end of the world. Make peace with who ever it is you make peace with. Just personally, I don't think the Middle East has much time left. Which both prophetically and literally, neither does the world.
Indeed, so have I. That was only a semi-serious comment, Cog. But seriously, I know alot of us here are athiest, but if Israel we're to be nuked, where would it be bombed? Jerusalem, naturally. The temple of Jerusalem would fall for a third time (in accordance with scriptures). What sort of destruction would a nuclear bomb reap? It would bring famine, disease, and death (in accordance with the scriptures). It's just an interesting though, not a literal prophecy. At the same time, through diplomacy or whatever, none of this might come to pass. One of my old teachers will be having fits at this news though. He was hard line Christian, and I often ended up in heated debate with him, despite my also being Catholic. Times ahead won't be boring, in any case... I think this will take a few years to brew in the very least. Ill be well past the minimum age of conscription by then. Oh well, I'll die for my country if the cause is right in my eyes.
Sorry I misspoke, I know what a missile shield is. I was confused as to who Russia was going to attack, since attacking Europe would not be in its interest, and if Europe wanted a missile shield why wouldn't they get one themselves. In fact most British MPs i've heard questioned on it, think it's a bad idea and goes back to the days of cold war and comes across as a provocation to Russia, and not the way to build ties with a country. Common knowledge - now what does that mean? Do most people have a good knowledge of Iranian politics? speak persian? or just blindly believe what some parts of the media tell them? There are a lot of false beliefs that aren't true. I think the most common and false quotation which is brought up for the justification that Iran is going to nuke Israel is that the president said he wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map' - which isn't true, what the president said was something on the lines of: ''Mr Ahmadinejad, a conservative and populist former mayor of Tehran who was elected president in August this year, told 3,000 students that a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world".'' Here's on article on what he said: Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel? - New York Times So whereas supporting palestinian attacks is not a great thing and not recognising Israels place in the middle east, it's far from saying Iran will nuke Israel at the first opportunity. Also it was an address in Iran in front of an anti-Jew seminar and he would obviously have his own political motives of how he wished to appear. He has to denounce Israel to appeal to the conservative people in this seminar. And it's not like it was addressed to Israel.
Hulls: Think of the children? Think of everyone! I think we all know the value of human life and none of us would wish innocents to be killed. I think all of us know the terrible nature of war, even if not first hand, and would wish it upon no one. These things are understood. Just because we don't go around speaking of them doesn't mean they are any less real to us. No political body will choose not to go to war because of the children. We all know that by now.
This is very true, but to be honest, if a war is worth fighting, then it should be fought. Refer to Dom's signature for further thoughts on this matter.
That's a tautology, though, and is useless to us. It is not the question of IF a war is worth fighting, but how can a war be worth fighting. Fighting a war means purposefully killing people. Some, like Hulls, would say it is tantamount to murder. Others say that people give their lives for greater things--but what is greater than human life?
That depends on the quantity of human life. If fighting a war in which many men die saves humanity, is it not then worth the fight? For surely one would rather fight and sacrifice a hundred years in order for their race to survive many more hundreds/thousands/millions of years. Yes, fighting war is deliberately killing other people. On legal terms, it would be closer to manlaughter I think, because it's in warm blood. But that's not relevant. But the reason behind it is what counts. Obviously there has only been a few wars in history that could be considered 'right', with most wars simply being the theft on another mans land. That is wrong. However, in the case of the world wars, I thoroughly believe and will always believe that they we're wars worth fighting. In defeating Hitler the world was saved from what would have surely been a nasty road.
Check out: Wikipedia and look up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. You will find that the speech in which he said "wiped off the map" was translated by IRAN!!! Very interesting, give it a read.
Yes, but how can you acurrately enough forecast the cost of war to make that judgment? You would have to have almost perfect knowledge to make such a judgment justifiably. All wars are fought for selfish reasons. They are fought for land or money. They are fought for not the people who die because of them, but for people who have money. Remember the golden rule: (S)he who has gold, rules. And everyone seeks power (gold) in politics--will to power is the only reason why politics exists. War is really the greatest feat of mass manipulation mankind has permitted itself to be party to. Notice: I'm claiming neither that war is wrong nor right. War can only be prudent.
Indeed, however, the same applies to selfishness; the moral line of what is selfish in a bad way and what is selfish in a less bad way still exists. In war, while we may be fighting for power, we are fighting for power to remain in one mands hands or fall into anothers (depending on your stand point). Again, depending on your views, this is either selfish yet necessary, or 'wrong'. War, is of course, not something anyone should want to engage in. However, it is a fact of life, and there is little point in trying to avoid it when it's unavoidable - that only guarantee's slaughter.
I'm not making an ethical judgment. I'm saying that wars exist outside ethics. They can only be prudent. What is prudent becomes good when the victors write the histories.
Fair enough call then, fair enough call. Good discussion. Best I've had for a while on here, since Maia seems to have disappeared from the Lounge.
what's very interesting is your sites of reference include common knowledge, a forum member and wikipedia. And like I said before it was a mistranslation, along with my other points that i made...
