ARM YOURSELF WITH TRUTH- WHY Iran wants nuclear capability

Iran flush with oil, short on refining

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran is flush with huge oil reserves and cash, but a refinery shortage leaves it heavily dependent on imported gasoline and diesel to keeps its cars and trucks rolling.

That's one reason the country — already beset with economic troubles — is desperate to avoid U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1149069249585&col=968705923364&call_page=TS_Business&call_pageid=968350072197&call_pagepath=Business/News


Iran doesn't have the refined oil to generate electricity, hence the need for nuclear power.

And remember, The NPT gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…No state has successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to an NPT inspection regime.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty


“Iran is a threat” is nothing more than propaganda to further the PNAC agenda . Anyone believing otherwise hasn’t been paying attention.

ush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCOMPLISHED
The Guardian
Monday, March 20, 2006
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=0

""There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get more of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing too much of it.""

Speaks volumes about the Iran situation, now, doesn't it ? BTW, OPEC is meeting right now in Caracas, Venezuela.

Its so plainly the truth...it just makes you feel so helpless when you read it though...Someone has to stop this madness, but how? Everyone's got their hand in the cookie jar I'm afraid.

yes, they may want nuclear power for energy, but do not feed me the nonesense that they do NOT want to acquire nuclear weapons. Valarie Plame said as much after she was outed

That does NOT mean we should not talk with them. In fact the "so-called" proposal was a joke. Asking for preconditions which involve WHAT NEEDS TO BE NEGOTIATED shows that the intent of the PNACers to cause the negotiations to fail

What should be done is stopping ALL COUNTRIES from spreading weapons throughout the world, but unfortunately there is big money involved

Palast hints that Iran really needs more refining capacity since it is importing fuel...

perhaps we could guarentee that we would NOT attack Iran for a start, of course that won't happen because I doubt we could be trusted after Iraq.

The point is to talk. In 2003 Iran wanted to talk, and we rejected them. Talk is always cheaper than bullets

Not necessarily. War is good for big business, just as controlling the flow of oil...

Talk may cheaper than bullets as far as lives are concerned, but when it comes to money...big business loves thems a war.

$millions? We came close to disarmament after the fall of the USSR, but then the war mongers took over.

1) They don't have any oil.

2) They're the Masters of PNAC Puppets.


When Israel disarms and that pesky double-standard is resolved, then we can talk.

Why do you signal out Israel, WHY NOT THE WHOLE WORLD?

Israeli nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. No one is "singling out" anyone. It is a fact.

that is what is referred to as saber rattling

Again, we should work to DISARM ALL THE WORLD INCLUDING US OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, no?

as you have now informed us that both Israel and Iran are engaged in "saber rattling."

and THAT's what this thread is about. PNAC isn't targeting Russia, the UK, China or France.

They DO TARGET CHINA

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and that is a reflection on you. This will be my last post to you, as I have reported you to the administrators, and have put you on ignore

http://www.newamericancentury.org/taiwan-20050721.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/china-20050201.htm

So they take their toys and go off in a huff.

I must have thicker skin than most because I've been called a "dimwit" and never once thought of Alerting a mod over such an inconsequential comment.

For anyone still paying attention, let me reiterate……CHINA WAS NEVER TARGETED IN PNAC’S “REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES“!!!….but I guess some folks think that if you can’t refute it, just ignore it.

It’s obvious that you don’t know my reputation as the Unofficial Resident PNAC Fanatic. Have I read about PNAC? Fuck, I wrote about them! (See PNAC 101 - Rise of the Neocons in my sig line.)

NOWHERE in the PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” manifesto is China targeted for attack or takeover. In fact, this is what PNAC has to say about China….

Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status…. By guaranteeing the security of our current allies and newly democratic nations in East Asia, the United States can help ensure that the rise of China is a peaceful one.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

Now please take your Straw Man somewhere else.

Mutual Assured Destruction. It is a policy that worked well for the US/USSR Cold War and may be able to be revived in the ME.

Israel would be called a rogue state if not for the influence AIPAC has on American politics and the legacy of the Holocast.

PNAC is the American cousin of the militant Likud. Unfornatulely, this cousin is on steroids and dangerously paranoid.

While I have no doubt that Iran needs nuclear power plants, I'll not delude myself into thinking they do not also want a bomb.

at what happened in Iraq - who can really blame them for wanting the ultimate trump card - I'm not saying I want nuclear bombs in the hands of the Iranians, but I certainly can't blame them for a)wanting nuclear power (their oil fields and gas fields are already in decline - and the refining issues already mentioned make them dependent on others for their refined products) and b) wanting weapons that they can defend themselves against US aggression

if they had them already, we'd be treating them like North Korea or Pakistan instead of treating them like Iraq 3 years ago...

Their presidents antics, they play right into he warmongers hands, giving them plenty of fodder for the propaganda machine.

I think they probably covet a credible nuclear deterrent too but I don't think we should go to war over my paranoia.

Do you?

Don

what I did say is that they are also going after nuclear weapons, and it is delusional to think otherwise

What I did say is we should be working with all countries INCLUDING OURS, to STOP SELLING WEAPONS PERIOD

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

From your own link…..

“Cheney & Co. did vast damage to our ability to know what is real and contrived inside Iran.”
========
“…if (article’s emphasis) Iran was trying to access external sources of uranium -- somewhere like Niger -- it is because those "secret efforts" would be outside the international intelligence monitoring of Iran's domestic mining operations.”
========
“The intelligence report also said that Niger's former Minister for Energy and Mines . Mai Manga, stated that there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid-1980s. He knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium. He said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran. ”
=======

It’s been speculated that Plame was outed before she could produce evidence that Iran was NOT working on a weapons program since that would blow the PNAC plan/propaganda out of the water.

So where’s your PROOF now?

Do you know/do you care……..

“IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access and have found no hard evidence, to date, that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty

Most of them quickly left DU after Bush invaded Iraq.


Don

I never believed we should have invaded Iraq in the FIRST GULF WAR

Also, I never said that Iran had nuclear weapons, I only said that believe that they would try to procure them, especially after the disaster we made in Iraq, and looking at North Korea, if anything our policy is pushing them towards it.

Again we should work for ALL COUNTRIES TO GET RID OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

saying I want Mr. Idiot to start a war with them. Unless they are totally bullpooping us about the leader whose name I can't pronounce, I do think it's possible that the people behind this guy are crazy enough to sell or use a nuclear weapon if they get a few. Even though I think that all of that is possible, I have to admit I don't have any answers for what to do about it.

My gut does tell me that Iran is possibly a much bigger threat than North Korea. But, hell, if we got hit by something catastrophic in this category I'm beginning to wonder if we would ever know who was actually behind doing it. By that, I mean what faction or group or state. It's also possible that Israel would be hit first. I know the word is that Iran's leader believes he's an "end of times" guy and that Iran being destroyed just sends them all to Islamic heaven. I've worried about this scenario since the '80's.

I don't know. Iran does scare me. All I do know is that I would very much prefer to have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress handling the situation. These psychotic faux cowboys have got to go.

N Korea expelled UN inspectors in Dec 2002 but * was too busy making up lies about Iraq at the UN and forgot to mention it. When the inspectors left, the door was wide open for a mothballed plutonium program to resume. Nobody blinked nor did sabers start rattling as they are currently towards Iran.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,867053,00.html

February 2003 - prior to the Iraq invasion - North Korea captured the spotlight yet again when it announced a reactivation of its nuclear facilities and threatened the U.S. with a pre-emptive first strike. Even in the midst of an overwhelmingly obvious threat to American security from an adversary with undeniable WMD capability, diplomatic relations calmly continued without any apparent concern and the focus remained on an Iraq attack, a country that posed no immediate threat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2731305.stm

If * was truly concerned about “security”, N. Korea would have beeen higher on the priority list. Clearly, Iraq was Control Central for the PNAC Grand Plan, and N. Korea would just have to wait its turn. With no oil to plunder, its just not a strategic priority so the spotlight is now falsely shining on oil-rich Iran to geographically connect American-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a method to their madness.

No matter how crazy any of the other tin-pot dictators become our own homegrown one here in the USA is the largest threat to any and all things USA by ten fold.

They want everything else outside the USA to be threat so they can scare you in giving up all you have here. They are crooks, frauds and criminals and are on a habitual binge they cannot control. They are drug addicts but their drug is your fear that gives them power.

that I was evil and should be stopped, I was a terrorist....and the town was having a meeting with ALL the leaders of the other towns around me to decide how to get rid of me...and I had previously watched another neighbor (named N. Korea) successfully preserve themselves by immediately announcing they had "protection" (insert "nukes"), and it saved their ass when the town leaders tried to do the same to them, and I watched another neighbor (Named I.Raq) NOT get the "protection" but the town leaders SAID they had it and look at that neighbor now.....I would be getting the "protection" as fast as my ass could carry me...faster if possible.

Simple observation from a woman sitting at her desk...namely me.

Iran has huge oil reserves but no refineries, so it wants nuclear power?

Now I'm not an expert on global economics, nor am I an oil executive, but why doesn't Iran build refineries to refine its huge oil reserves. Then it wouldn't have to export gasoline and diesel. I mean, wouldn't it be easier than undertaking nuclear power?

Just asking...

But I don't know the cost of building a refinery vs. the cost of building a nuclear facility so I really can't comment further.

Building a nuclear power plant appears to be considerably cheaper than building an oil refinery.

See post #39.

I think nuclear power should be banned everywhere. It's just too dangerous.

While I realize that building costs would vary greatly from one country to the next, it appears that nuclear power is the cheaper way to go. (this is the best I could do with a quick search.)

the cost of building a new refinery is between $2 billion and $4 billion --
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/pd061201a.html


China, Pakistan Sign $600 Million Deal For Building Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/4-5-7/21279.html

The Russian nuclear giant Rosenergoatom is going to build no less than two floating nuclear power plants for the Arkhangelsk region. Each will cost $100-120 million.
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/30/38898.html


Looks like we're talking millions vs billions.

would not exist in Iran.

>Why does the industry appear to have built its last refinery? Three reasons: refineries are not particularly profitable, environmentalists fight planning and construction every step of the way and government red-tape makes the task all but impossible. <

then we're still looking at billions vs. millions.

For example, I doubt Kuwait would have the environmental or govt. red-tape problems common to the U.S., yet......

Kuwait raises cost estimate of new oil refinery to over 6 bln usd
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/07/20/afx2148410.html


While I am NOT a proponent of nuclear power, my research has consistently revealed that it's cheaper than other means of energy production.

Because the fuel used in nuclear power plants exist in abundant supply, the price is very cheap, unlike for fossil fuels where the supply is finite and slowly diminishing. A typical fuel pellet cost about $7. This one fuel pellet has an equivalent energy of three barrels of oil, which cost $84, or one ton of coal, which cost $29. In 1993, the fossil fuels displaced by nuclear energy totaled: 470 million tons of coal and 96 million barrels of oil which translated to about $17 billion. By using nuclear energy at $7 per pellet, a savings of about $13 billion was generated in just one year.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/thyd/ne161/ncabreza/sources.html

I gotta tell ya, all this "making a nuclear bomb" shit makes no sense at all.

If Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, they're easily obtained: North Korea has nuclear weapons, North Korea needs oil, Iran has the oil the DPRK needs, the dictators of Iran and the DPRK are perpetual finalists in the international "Shithouse Rat of the Year" pageant...believe me, North Korea would trade Iran some bombs for some oil. North Korea would even bundle them with operators and mechanics.

Oh...kay! Onward and upward. Assume Iran wanted to burn oil for energy. They need refineries at a couple billion a hit. They need power generating facilities at a couple hundred million a hit. Any oil they use to make electricity can't be used to make money--and Iran sells what, two things on the open market? Oil and rugs? There ain't that much profit in the rug business. As they say in the pot trade, "don't smoke the merchandise."

OTOH, for less than a billion they can install a nuclear power plant that's big enough to serve the whole country. Even if it cost them a billion dollars, it's still cheaper than oil in the long run.

I don't know the figures off hand but they are generally more expensive the coal fired plants at the very least. Not only is it necessary for uranium to be mined but it also has to be dealt with after it is done. We also know what happens when countries with out expertise in the sciences develop this technology (meltdown).

Furthermore if by some chance it was done for economic reasons there would be no reason to push as hard as they have been to acquire this technology. They are harming foreign relations, which hurts the economy more then any gains that they could possibly receive from the technology.

The Iranian government has said and done some worrying things lately. Perhaps the most extreme was denying the holocaust existed. People complain about the direction Bush’s religious policies have taken America, but the American Government is nothing compared to the Iranian government.

See post #45 for cost comparisons.


Iran’s concern is for its own economy.

Iran’s exploding population is leading to increased demand for electric power of about 7%-8% annually. Currently, it’s seeing capital shortages in the electricity market.

If Iran abandons it's nuclear ambitions, it will have to replace …power generation with other means. The obvious choice is of course it's oil and gas reserves. The dilemma for the Iranians is one of opportunity cost, for by diverting the oil and gas for domestic consumption they'll be foregoing earning foreign exchange, which if we discount the recent run-up in oil prices, Iran is in desperate need of, for oil is the main export that they have to offer the world.

Further compounding the issue is the rise of domestic consumption, and with its burgeoning population Iran could expect to see the majority of its oil production diverted away from export markets and severely curtailing its foreign exchange earnings.

Another compounding issue is that Iranian national pride is tied up with the nuclear development. To succumb to US and European pressures would be hugely unpopular domestically.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003117.html

economists, one who works in the industry and another who is a professor of regulatory economics. This is not including environmental costs. Valuation of the environment would be excessively complicated so I will not further discuss it. The way I understand it is that if nuclear projects go perfectly then they are cheaper, however they rarely go cheaper.

Regarding the article you posted, the scope is too small. Unless the Iranian government was extremely naïve they would know that there would be cost due to unpopularity of rogue nations having nuclear capabilities. Since the cost of such an action is known the Iranian government cannot economically justify such a program.

From a strictly construction cost comparison, nuclear is clearly cheaper. Again, we're talking billions vs millions.

As for the article, how big a "scope" do you propose? What are you talking about in reference to "cost due to unpopularity of rogue nations"?

fuel. If the cost difference is as you claim it is no one would be building coal and gas fired plants. There are two costs that also need to be considered; the cost of training and hiring maintenance employees and the capital cost of building the plants. The capital costs of nuclear plants are huge relative to those of oil and gas. Thus the article that you quoted is wrong (or at the very least irrelevant).

When you do economic analysis of a political decision you look at the smallest isolated choice that can be made. For example you cannot isolate the effect that certain transfer payments such as welfare have on the incentive to work. This is not saying that welfare should be eliminated or reduced it just says that you need to consider all of the effects that necessarily come out of a decision. (On the flip side when considering the removal of a program such as welfare you have to consider the effects of increased crime as removal of welfare will increase crime.) Most people see Iran pursuing nuclear technology as a threat, therefore even if they only intend to use the technology for energy generation the costs of increased foreign tension occurs. Thus from an economic standpoint Iran pursuing nuclear technology is a bad idea.

I mean I don't trust Bush.

Well Iran's government is more crazy than this one, so I certainly don't trust them.

Can't have it both ways.

Can't say Bush is a danger, and then say Iran isn't. What kind of checks and balances are there in Iran against a crazy religious nut? Less than in the US, apparently, judging from the theocratic legislation.

:hide: