What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bushehr: Why the United States has not bombed Iran … yet

Casper

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
4
Points
6
The Bushehr plant took 35 years to build. In 1974 the West German company, Kraftwerk Union, began work on its construction. Russia has been working on its completion since 1995. The launch of this NPP was repeatedly postponed for a variety of reasons, including the computer network crash that took place in summer 2010. But even the belated launch of the Bushehr plant has become a major success for Iran. The emergence of a fully functioning nuclear power plant means that Tehran has joined the “nuclear club” of states with closed nuclear fuel cycles.

Some experts explain the unusually muted nature of the U.S. response as evidence of the depletion of their military and economic resources. But this explanation does not stand up to scrutiny. Nowadays, the Pentagon doesn’t have any troops to spare for a hypothetical occupation of Iran, in an Afghanistan or Iraq scenario. But it does boast sufficient carrier groups in the Indian Ocean for an air campaign to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. In 1981, Israel struck a nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq, setting the country’s nuclear power program back significantly. The Americans are technically able to organize a re-run of that operation, this time – against Iran.

The “Iranian threat” issue can be used to justify the need for the U.S. anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system in Europe. Washington, of course, could develop this system without making any reference to Iran. But that would make the ABM system look like an explicitly anti-Russian move. Without the mention of Iran the United States would also find it more difficult to negotiate with Moscow on arms control issues and persuade its European allies that there is a genuine need for the ABM complexes to be located on their territory.


Full version of this comment was originally published on www.valdaiclub.com
 

Douger

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
12,321
Reaction score
936
Points
0
Location
Not fucking there !
Because Russia already has control of their natural resources.They tried to get Afghanistan's but you hired Osama to toss them out. It worked.Now you idiots are trying to get them. You're failing too.
The Osama project, like so many others, was an epic fail.
 

Attachments

  • $reagan_taliban_1985.jpg
    $reagan_taliban_1985.jpg
    27.7 KB · Views: 84

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,584
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Uncle Ferd says Iran just beggin' to get bombed...
:eusa_eh:
Iran: Bushehr reactor reaches full capacity
Sep 1,`12 -- Iran's sole operational nuclear power reactor has reached full capacity, a senior official said Saturday.
Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammad Ahmadian, said the reactor at the Bushehr power plant was brought to its "full capacity of 1,000 megawatts" Friday evening. The reactor went into operation for the first time last year at minimum capacity. The Islamic Republic built the nuclear power plant in the southern Iranian port city with Russian help. The facility is a cornerstone of Iran's drive to become a technological leader among Muslim nations, with efforts such as an ambitious space program and long-range missile development. Iran also runs smaller research reactors and is building another power reactor.

The United States and some of its allies believe the Bushehr plant is part of an Iranian attempt to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the accusation, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The Bushehr project dates back to 1974, when Iran's U.S.-backed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi contracted with the German company Siemens to build the reactor. The company withdrew from the project after the 1979 Islamic Revolution brought hard-line clerics to power.

In 1992, Iran signed a $1 billion deal with Russia to complete the project and work began in 1995. Since then, the project has been beset by problems linked to construction and supply glitches. Under the contract, Bushehr was originally scheduled to come on stream in July 1999 but it was repeatedly postponed over technical glitches and financial disputes. The reactor finally went into operation last summer operating with minimum capacity to undergo tests before full operation.

Source

See also:

AP analysis: Iran may be pushing to nuke threshold
Sep 1,`12 - -- A "big and unforgivable" sin. A Western falsehood. An attempt to deprive developing nations of peaceful nuclear technology.
That's how Iran's supreme leader addresses allegations that the Islamic Republic seeks atomic weapons. Iran's denials - while forceful and delivered from the pinnacle of its ruling Islamic system - can carry a distinctly hollow ring among its foes as the U.N. nuclear watchdog piles on worries: Complaining about limits on inspection access and reporting that Tehran is expanding its nuclear fuel labs in a virtually attack-proof underground site. They are enriching uranium far beyond what's needed for their lone energy reactor and preventing inspection, adding to the urgency while repeatedly predicting Israel will be destroyed and actively supporting militancy in the region.

But, as Israel increasingly weighs the option of a military strike, Western leaders wary of another Middle East conflict may have to pay closer attention to the claims by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and others. Quite possibly, they may be telling the truth. Or at least to a point. Iran could be shaping its nuclear ambitions after Japan, which has the full scope of nuclear technology - including the presumed ability to produce warhead-grade material - but has stopped short of actually producing a weapon. It creates, in effect, a de facto nuclear power with all the parts but just not pieced together.

More than two years ago, Iran's Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani essentially embraced Tokyo's nuclear model during a visit to Japan that included a stop in Nagasaki, of the two cities destroyed by American atomic bombs World War II. Larijani met with Japanese officials and praised the country's nuclear program as a symbol of a third path that dates back to the 1970s, when then Japanese Prime Minister Tsutomu Hata told reporters that Japan "certainly" could possess nuclear arms "but has not made them." The major difference, however, is Israel and other U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia. They would have to adapt to a huge balance-of-power shift with Iran on the doorstep of having nuclear arms.

Following Japan's path would allow Iran to push their nuclear technology to the limit while being able to claim it has adhered to its international pledge not to develop a bomb. Yoel Guzansky, an Iranian affairs expert for Israel's Institute of National Security Studies, believes Iran could be adopting a Japan-style policy to reach a "nuclear threshold." "Israeli can't live with the uncertainty of a nuclear threshold state," he said. "Iran could push over (to weapons capability) at any given moment." The world, however, has absorbed the game-changing nuclear arms development of states such as China and Pakistan. Israel, too, is believed to have a nuclear arsenal although officials neither confirm nor deny its existence.

MORE
 

Jos

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
7,412
Reaction score
757
Points
0
Under International Law it is illegal to bomb Nuclear power stations
 

Ariux

Rookie
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,727
Reaction score
184
Points
0
Under International Law it is illegal to bomb Nuclear power stations

Since when did God Damned Jews give a shit about International Law? Israel is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any other country in the world (and, the US has veto power over UN resolutions).
 

Jos

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
7,412
Reaction score
757
Points
0
Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
1. Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.
Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 42. Works and Installations Containing Dangerous Forces
I doubt Israel will respect any treaty it has signed, something to keep in mind in the coming War
 

Ariux

Rookie
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,727
Reaction score
184
Points
0
The Bushehr plant is open to UN inspectors, completely legal under international law, and it has no potential to be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. Bombing it could spread radiation and would be a crime against humanity, not just the Iranian people.
 

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,524
Reaction score
2,246
Points
245
Under International Law it is illegal to bomb Nuclear power stations

Since when did God Damned Jews give a shit about International Law? Israel is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any other country in the world (and, the US has veto power over UN resolutions).

Shutup Joo hater.
 

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,524
Reaction score
2,246
Points
245
Maybe if Ahmenihsfrwjad stopped calling for the destruction of Israel and stopped supplying weapons to Hezbollah. If any Iranan die in an air strike, their blood is on HIS hands !!!!!!

loinboy, you are a scumbag. how can you sit there and defend him ? you are American ????
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
74,298
Reaction score
8,064
Points
2,030
Says who?

Which international "Law" says that?

What if it is a legitimate military target?
Civilian infrastructure, is not a military target.

any structure being USED for military purposes in times of war or battle is a MILITARY TARGET from bridges to houses If a bridge is being used to transport soldiers are amaments----it is a military target If a hospital is being used to treat injured soldiers----it is NOT a military target------if it is being used to store weapons or as a fortress FROM which to attack----IT IS A MILITARY TARGET
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top