Iran uses plant as a message of defiance

How do they get from the content of the story to the headline? Did Ali Akbar Dareini of AP who wrote the story not read his own writing ...

source: article above, [emphasis mine]

"Heavy water contains a heavier hydrogen particle that allows a nuclear reactor to run on the natural uranium mined by Iran, without undergoing the enrichment process."
...
"The UN deadline does not demand a halt to operations at the plant or a nearby reactor that Iran is building to use the heavy water."

So, given the facts only in this story, is this a "message of defiance"? On its face it looks to me to be the opposite. It looks more like a demonstration of the intent to develope a peaceful power program.

Here is a more even handed and much more informative article without the headline spin: Iran opens heavy-water reactor, denies it's a threat. It tells us why it might actually be a threat ...

source: Michael Slackman / New York Times
"nuclear experts note that heavy-water facilities are more useful for weapons because they produce lots of plutonium -- the preferred ingredient for missile warheads"

Me, i think that the journalists and politicians who are cranking up the Iranian nuclear threat are not doing the world any favors. If Iran can run heavy water reactors thereby not needing to enrich Uranium in advance, and the Plutonium by-product can be verifiably dealt with, what right do the current nuclear powers have to say they cannot?

Comments

Mark de LA says

M 2006-08-27 13:51:33 4269

Here is a chilling reference for the former assertion.

And here is another Persian resource, but the same quote.

Is this anything ? It's a link in the latter reference ?

Mark de LA says

Heavy Hydrogen + Heavy Oxygen + (Plutonium?) makes a nice Hydrogen Bomb. Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. The latest stupidity of the Iranian leader is that he would sacrafice half of Iran to get rid of Israel. (I wonder if he campaigned on that platform before the so-called election). Iran as it is is a menace.

Seth says

M 2006-08-28 10:45:02 4269

seth 2006-08-28 10:39:16 4269

M 2006-08-28 10:33:43 4269

This is more like why they think that S only has an ad hominem argument. He shows as a pretend armchair liberal, but when the analysis gets tough (i.e. doesn't agree with is pretend lack of bias he goes for insults) 4115 applies here.

You know i started to analize your epistile, but after considering it seriously for a while i found that it contained no element of reality. Hense my response.

Well neither does publishing this idea!

source: ... What then should the US and its allies do in the face of Iran's nuclear defiance? The answer is clear: concede defeat.

... unless you are in Ahmednejad's back pocket!
BTW notice what comes up first in the following: google ahmednejad

I guess you missed what i said about "concedeing defeat". And, btw, your misspelling of "ahmadinejad" is hardly notable ... did you notice that i affixed the correct tag?

Seth says
Here is an interesting point of view ...

source: Stop issuing threats and bring Tehran back into the civilised world

What then should the US and its allies do in the face of Iran's nuclear defiance? The answer is clear: concede defeat.

Iran has won this tussle and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Instead of trying to stop Tehran's nuclear program, the international community must bring Iran back into the civilised world. The only way to do that is to stop issuing empty threats and to start offering Tehran some real incentives for co-operative behaviour - non-aggression guarantees from the US and Israel, removal of the residual US economic sanctions dating back to the 1980s, and the prospect of steadily improving treatment for the nation in investment and trade.

Not sure i agree except to acknowledge that sanctions will not work and bringing Iran back into the "civilized world" would be nice but i doubt that it will happen with the current regime in power.

He just dismissess a military stike as follows ...

As a last resort, couldn't the US or Israel stop the nuclear program by threatening to bomb Iran? Sadly or happily (depending on your world view), the answer is a clear no. Militarily, the US and Israel have shot their bolts in Iraq and Lebanon respectively.

The last argument against a military strike, but by no means the least one, brings us back to the oil issue. If the US or Israel were to bomb Iran's nuclear installations, Tehran would have the strongest possible reason to ramp up the oil price to $US150 a barrel or higher by closing or restricting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

... but fails to recognize that we should not be afraid of rising oil prices. Also if a military strike against Iran also takes out their oil industry, then Iran will no longer have any lever against the West (period) ... see Pour concrete down their oil wells !.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-08-28 11:15:08 4269

M 2006-08-28 11:08:52 4269

There is no "correct spelling" in English!

Check the usage stats at googel. What you say is ~ 1/4000 true.

I think there are 1619 others in that 1/4000 that agree. A transliteration is in the ear of the listener.

Seth says

M 2006-08-28 11:08:52 4269

There is no "correct spelling" in English!

Check the usage stats at googel. What you say is ~ 1/4000 true.

Seth says
Now google buckley shame, ... that is a real accomplishment, even though Buckley's script has now become the dominant [tag drums of war] beat. I doubt that he should take credit. But because of his rep, he certainly contributed to the drone. I liked the beat of this because it had a different syncopation. Sorry i drummed a bit of the beat from your comment and all i could get was that "rubber ducker sucker fucker" sound. I still like the sound of "pour concrete down their wells" ... it is bold and booming ... with just a hint of reality. Too bad we have Texas oil men in the WH, to them oil is a sacred substance, not to be defiled.

Iran uses plant as a message of defiance

Tags

Comments

See Also