Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You own quote says that the Syrian site contained no bomb or reactor materials.
Yes, I know.
While U-238 is the least reactive, blowing it up is still dangerously radioactive
How dangerous? Half as dangerous as I-135? 100th? 1,000,000th?
Put some numbers to your claim.
and will still decay into plutonium-239.
Ummm....U-238 will decay into Pu-239?
How does decay make an element heavier?
Sounds like you're talking out of your ass again.
It just takes longer for some isotopes than others, to be more dangerous.
How long does it take U-238 to be dangerous?
I'm right wing and a fascist???
You haven't been here long or can't read.
When a new US president is elected, the government does not change.
Just the current representative.
The legal obligations remain unchanged.
Where do you get the idea that getting rid of the Shah changes any treaty Iran entered?
If they want to leave the NPT, they need to withdraw. Have they?
But the Shah was a criminal, for illegally suppressing the will of the people in 1953, with his military take over.
Like Khomeini illegally suppressed the will of the people.
Khomeini was not a criminal,
Why do you feel that way?
but requested by the Iranian people to return to Iran
Requested? Did they vote on it? How many votes did "return" get?
How many votes did "don't return" get?
So if any country can legally have nuclear weapons, they all can.
You're lying.
"no longer" ? So you think they were abiding by it, at ANY point in time, do you ? Interested in a bridge in Brooklyn ? Half price ?
What difference does it make how dangerous U-238 is?
What ever they are using, if it is not dangerous, then there is no reason to worry about it and blow it up.
If it is dangerous, that is even more reason to not blow it up and spread it around.
But I just looked it up, and U-238 decays into Th-234.
It only turns into Pu-239 when you are trying to enrich it.
Yes Iran has withdrawn from the NPT due to economic sanctions imposed by Trump.
Its a long but interesting read.
{...
1979
The United States and Iran severed ties after the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Iranian nuclear projects were halted, including the U.S. supply of highly enriched uranium for the Tehran Research Reactor.
1995
May 11 – The signatories of the NPT agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely after a review conference in New York. Efforts to renew the agreement were spearheaded by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a senior U.S. diplomat and nuclear negotiator.
1997
May – The IAEA expanded the NPT’s Safeguards Agreement by adopting the Additional Protocol. Under the latter, inspectors would be allowed to conduct short notice inspections and be provided with multiple entry/exit visas. Iran signed the Additional Protocol in 2003 but had not ratified it as of 2020.
2000
May 22 – In the sixth review conference, NPT signatories agreed to a 13-step process toward nuclear disarmament, which included an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”
2003
June 19 – The IAEA concluded that Iran had not violated the NPT but said that it should have been more forthcoming about the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and the Arak heavy water production plant. The IAEA later urged Iran to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would provide inspectors with greater access to nuclear sites on shorter notice.
September 12 – The IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend all enrichment activities. Iran was required to declare all uranium-enrichment sites and activities and allow IAEA inspectors to conduct inspections at any location in the country.
October 21 – Iran agreed to meet the IAEA Board of Governors’ demands. It also agreed to sign Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
2004
Nov. 14 – Iran accepted the Paris accord after negotiations with Britain, France and Germany. The agreement recognized Tehran's rights to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and reaffirmed its commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. In return, Iran agreed to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment activities and allow the IAEA to test the sites. The IAEA decided not to refer Iran’s nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council.
2005
Sept. 24 –The IAEA found Iran in noncompliance with the NPT Safeguards Agreement and decided to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for further action. The decision followed Iran’s repeated failure to fully report its nuclear activities. Tehran countered that it might suspend its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol that allowed more intrusive and sudden inspections.
Nov. 20 – Iran’s parliament approved a bill requiring the government to stop voluntary implementation of the Safeguards Agreement’s separate Additional Protocol, which allowed more intrusive and surprise inspections, if Iran were referred to the Security Council. The parliament did not move to block normal inspections required under the Safeguards Agreement, which had been ratified by parliament in 1974.
2006
Feb. 4 – The IAEA reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council for its non-compliance with the NPT Safeguards Agreement.
July 31 – The U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1696 demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities within one month. No sanctions were imposed but the resolution warned that "appropriate measures" would be taken in the case of Iranian non-compliance. Tehran called the resolution illegal.
Dec. 23 – The U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1737, sanctioning Iran for its failure to halt uranium enrichment. The resolution banned the sale of nuclear-related technology to Iran and froze the assets of key individuals and companies related to the nuclear program.
2007
Dec. 4 – A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear activities said that there was evidence that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. It assessed with “moderate confidence” that Iran had not re-started its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007. The findings contradicted the 2005 U.S. intelligence assessment that Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability.
2010
June 9 – The U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 which tightened proliferation-related sanctions on Iran. It banned Tehran from testing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and imposed an embargo on the transfer of major weapons systems to Iran. Major players in Iran’s energy sector were liable to be sanctioned for supporting nuclear or ballistic missile development.
2011
Nov. 8 – An IAEA report accused Iran continuing nuclear weaponization work since 2003, including a secret project to enrich uranium. It also indicated that there were 8,000 centrifuges installed at Natanz, 6,200 of which were operating. Tehran denied the report and accused the United States of fabricating the evidence.
2013
October 28-29 – Iran held discussions with the IAEA regarding the watchdog’s investigations of nuclear activities that violated the NPT. The parties issued a joint statement committing to "practical measures" that would "strengthen cooperation and dialogue with a view to future resolution of all outstanding issues." Iran and the IAEA agreed to meet again in November.
2015
July 14 – Iran and six world powers reached a landmark deal in which Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program and provide access to inspectors in exchange for sanctions relief. The agreement, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was implemented in January 2016.
2018
May 8 – President Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the reimposition of sanctions on Iran. The other five parties, including Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia –vowed to uphold the accord. Iran said it would fulfill its obligations if it could reap the economic benefits guaranteed in the deal.
May 24 – An IAEA quarterly report showed that Iran was adhering to all nuclear commitments under the JCPOA.
November – The Trump administration reimposed sweeping sanctions against Tehran that were lifted after the 2015 nuclear deal.
2019
April 28 – Iran warned that it could leave the NPT after the United States tightened sanctions on Iran’s oil and gas industry. “The Islamic Republic’s choices are numerous, and the country’s authorities are considering them ... and leaving NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) is one of them,” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said.
June 17 – Iran said that it would leave the NPT if European powers did not save the 2015 nuclear deal. “There is not much time left until the end of the 60 days ultimatum given by Iran to the Europeans to save the (2015) deal. After that Iran will suspend implementation of the Non-proliferation Treaty,” said Mojtaba Zolnour, head of the nuclear committee of parliament.
July 1 – Iran began a series of steps away from the 2015 nuclear deal by exceeding limits on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Tehran’s stockpile was limited to 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium under the deal. By January 2020, it had exceeded the agreement’s limits at least five times.
2020
January 5 – Iran announced that it would no longer abide by restrictions on uranium enrichment imposed by the JCPOA. Tehran emphasized that all its actions were reversible and that it would return to the deal if sanctions would be lifted and its interests could be guaranteed. Iran said it would continue to cooperate with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.
January 14 – Britain, France and Germany triggered the dispute resolution mechanism under the 2015 nuclear deal. It was the strongest action taken by European powers to enforce the agreement. If Iran does not return to compliance, the process could result in the reimposition of U.N. sanctions and ensure that an arms embargo does not expire in October 2020.
Jan. 20 – Iran said that it could withdraw from the NPT if its case is referred to the U.N. Security Council. “If the Europeans continue their improper behavior or send Iran’s file to the Security Council, we will withdraw from the NPT,” said Foreign Minister Zarif.
Jan. 28 – A group of Iranian lawmakers called for a debate on whether Iran should leave the NPT. A proposal would need to be passed in two readings and then ratified by the Guardian Council to become a law. But the supreme leader has the final say on the nuclear program.
...}
Iran and the NPT
Iran was one of the original 62 signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the most important global treaty on the world’s deadliest weapon.iranprimer.usip.org
And yes, the people did vote Khomeni in apparently.
{...
In November 1979, the new constitution of the Islamic Republic was adopted by national referendum.[127][128] Khomeini himself became instituted as the Supreme Leader (Guardian Jurist), and officially became known as the "Leader of the Revolution." On 4 February 1980, Abolhassan Banisadr was elected as the first president of Iran. Critics complain that Khomeini had gone back on his word[129] to advise, rather than rule the country.[130]
...}
No country has any more authority or rights than any other.
The US has not authority to have nuclear weapons other than that any country has, which is self defense.
But the US really should have forfeit that right, since we used nuclear weapons illegally on the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Wrong.
If you favor gun control, you want the wealthy elite to have a monopoly on power.
A lot of people pretend to be left wing, like Hillary, but a real left wing person would not have supported fascist right wing things, like the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc., and no left wing person would ever support gun control.
For example, Black Lives Matter is left wing, and they would never support gun control.
No leftist ever could.
It is a total and complete contradiction.
Wrong.
If you favor gun control, you want the wealthy elite to have a monopoly on power.
A lot of people pretend to be left wing, like Hillary, but a real left wing person would not have supported fascist right wing things, like the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc., and no left wing person would ever support gun control.
For example, Black Lives Matter is left wing, and they would never support gun control.
No leftist ever could.
It is a total and complete contradiction.
Xi's man Biden would go to war to protect Iran.If Israel wants to take Iran out, they should have at it.. Quit bothering the US and Biden.
If the wealthy elite get a monopoly on power, how do you think your guns will stop that?
Storm the capitol like 6/1? All gather in the mall and talk incessantly?
Take back the country? From what?
You've had ample opportunities to do something to justify your guns and the lot of you gun nuts have done nothing and never will. No courage. Home of the brave my foot.
Please stop telling left wingers what they support or believe. You really don't have the first clue.
The left wing supports gun control and opposes control by the wealthy elite.
the question was how many had they inspected. Ever since Obammy. You didn't catch that in his post huh?The IAEA likely has not inspected since Trump ended the deal.
Why should they?
so you fking agree it wasn't a threatening event. can't make it up. and it 1/6If the wealthy elite get a monopoly on power, how do you think your guns will stop that?
Storm the capitol like 6/1? All gather in the mall and talk incessantly?
Take back the country? From what?
You've had ample opportunities to do something to justify your guns and the lot of you gun nuts have done nothing and never will. No courage. Home of the brave my foot.
indeed, violating any humans freedoms is a Nazi tactic. For anyone to say otherwise are just ignorant to the holocost.He's right though. You are a Nazi. You seek totalitarian dictatorship under a fascist Reich, not the Kumbaya Nirvana of a stateless society. You seek to strip the peasants of all wealth and goods - but only to give it all to our kings and dictators in the all powerful state.
What difference does it make how dangerous U-238 is?
You said it was dangerously radioactive. You're ridiculously, incredibly, hugely mistaken.
But I just looked it up, and U-238 decays into Th-234.
It only turns into Pu-239 when you are trying to enrich it.
Enrichment doesn't make an element heavier. You're talking out of your ass.
If the wealthy elite get a monopoly on power, how do you think your guns will stop that?
Storm the capitol like 6/1? All gather in the mall and talk incessantly?
Take back the country? From what?
You've had ample opportunities to do something to justify your guns and the lot of you gun nuts have done nothing and never will. No courage. Home of the brave my foot.
Please stop telling left wingers what they support or believe. You really don't have the first clue.
The left wing supports gun control and opposes control by the wealthy elite.
the question was how many had they inspected. Ever since Obammy. You didn't catch that in his post huh?
so you fking agree it wasn't a threatening event. can't make it up. and it 1/6
So you don't think it is dangerous to vaporize U-238 and inhale it into your body?
{...
Uranium-238 emits alpha particles which are less penetrating than other forms of radiation, and weak gamma rays As long as it remains outside the body, uranium poses little health hazard (mainly from the gamma-rays). If inhaled or ingested, however, its radioactivity poses increased risks of lung cancer and bone cancer.
...}
Enrichment is not a process of just sorting out the heavier isotopes, but also making them heavier by bombardment with alpha, beta, or gamma particles in a reactor. When you bombard an element with neutron, you DO make it heavier. That is what breeder reactors are for.
{...
A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fissile material than it consumes.[1] Breeder reactors achieve this because their neutron economy is high enough to create more fissile fuel than they use, by irradiation of a fertile material, such as uranium-238 or thorium-232, that is loaded into the reactor along with fissile fuel. Breeders were at first found attractive because they made more complete use of uranium fuel than light water reactors, but interest declined after the 1960s as more uranium reserves were found,[2] and new methods of uranium enrichment reduced fuel costs.
...}
