Chants of "Nuclear energy is our right!"

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2006/feb/01/020103494.html

<snip>

In a speech to thousands of supporters hours after President Bush's State of the Union address, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derided the United States as a "hollow superpower" that is "tainted with the blood of nations" and said Tehran would continue its nuclear program.

"Nuclear energy is our right, and we will resist until this right is fully realized," Ahmadinejad told the crowd in the southern Iran city of Bushehr, the site of Iran's only nuclear power plant.

"Our nation can't give in to the coercion of some bully countries who imagine they are the whole world and see themselves equal to the entire globe," he added.

The crowd responded with chants of "Nuclear energy is our right!"

<more>

"Nuclear energy is our right" is then followed by a second refrain, "And, the public is going to pay for it, forever!"

too funny - but alas probably all too true....

"Solar Energy will be our grandchildren's right once we've finished melting the fucking icecaps" wouldn't be as snappy.

My last grandparent died in the 1970's. (My other grandparents died in the 1940's - shortly before the promise of solar energy was first annunciated.)

Unfortunately in my entire life time, solar energy has remained unable to deliver a single exajoule. This is unfortunate since the risk of global climate change is much higher than the risk of Iranian nuclear weapons.

I, however, agree that the Iranians have a right to nuclear power. Everybody does. Affordable energy is necessary for a decent standard of living, but increasingly energy is only acceptable when it is risk minimized with respect to global climate change.

The Iranians can have nuclear energy. Because their primary fuel now is energy that increases the risk of global climate change, they should have nuclear energy.

However we can minimize even further the already small risks of nuclear power - already much lower than the risk of global climate change - by IAEA stewardship. This should be a matter of international law. Another element of international law in my view should be the dismantling of all nuclear weapons. The effective path to disarmament can only take place where a well developed nuclear power infrastructure exists. In fact, the Russians, who have dismantled many nuclear weapons, are happy to provide the Iranians with nuclear fuel under the auspices of the IAEA.

I note that people should demand the destruction of nuclear weapons in the US, in Russia, in Britain, in China, even though these weapons have not been used since 1945, which was around the time my grandparents died.

But the topic here is NOT about energy. It is scare mongering and posturing (on both sides) of the type that went on before the war in Iraq. The usual set of people is dragging out nuclear issues in the usual ignorant way to justify (and obscure) an agenda that exists because of oil. This is because nuclear mysticism still exists, though obviously it is fading as fast as the ice caps are melting. (No one is thinking of war against North Korea.)

Many people are uncomfortable with nuclear power and the world's now irreversible decision to expand its use, mostly because they have little or no experience with energy issues and are poorly prepared to address them. Most anti-nuclear power arguments do not stand up to rational scrutiny, and have been largely rejected by international consensus. I suppose the only refuge of those who have had their case kicked from under them is a compulsion to raise red herrings. I have already discussed logical fallacies (of which a red herring is an example) at length on this website, and feel no compulsion to review them now. As always, a comprehensive list of them can be found, by interested parties, at www.fallacyfiles.org.

Iran haven't kicked out the IAEA inspectors, or prevented them from doing spot-checks (yet, at least). In that respect, they are far better behaved that the USA, UK and Israel who do limit IAEA inspections.

Pot, meet Kettle.

The IAEA inspects ISRAELI nuclear facilities????

two words

Mordeci Vanunu

....and the IAEA has access to US and UK nuclear weapons production facilities??????

too funny...

:)

Or do you now automatically reply with "LOL!!!" ?

;-)

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!
:rofl:
LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!
lol: lol!!!!

link don't work

:)

:rofl: "What a crock!" and all that.

If you read my post, I was asking Dead Parrot if he wanted an unbiased opinion.

I did not say that I was offering an unbiased opinion. I believe my opinion of the subject to which Dead Parrot is referring is well known by any interested parties, as scarcely needs repeating.

I do note that the content of Dead Parrot's posts in this thread - and all threads - are easily discerned by reading them. I think he was very clear on the subject of Isreal, Isreal being a country that as of today has zero commercial nuclear power plants, although it is widely accepted that it does have nuclear weapons.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

I don't think that means we should invade every country that tries to get them. You can see right now why Iran would want them--we have been on the edge of invading for the last two years.

Many countries want nuclear power and not weapons. In fact the number of countries who have nuclear power and no nuclear weapons outnumbers those who have both. There is one state (Isreal) that has weapons and no commercial nuclear power.

Here are the thirty nations that have significant nuclear energy capacity:



Eight of them possess nuclear weapons. Two others had nuclear weapons and engaged in nuclear disarmament (Ukraine - at independence - and Apartheid era South Africa.) Japan, which has the world's third largest nuclear capacity has long been a world leader in opposing nuclear weapons, having been the only victim of nuclear war.

The purpose of the current nuclear scare mongering in Iran is to attempt to gain a US stranglehold on world oil resources. Given the competence level of the current US leadership, the attempt will fail as miserably as l'affaire d'Iraq failed, but reality has never stopped these fellows from following stupid policies in any case.