Report: Iran short on uranium

[toomuchtime_]

Western powers believe Iran is running short of raw uranium for its nuclear program and are urging producer nations not to sell to Tehran, The Times reported on Saturday.

The British newspaper said Britain's Foreign Office late last year ordered its diplomats in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Brazil – all major uranium producers – to lobby their governments on the issue.

"Countries including Britain, the US, France and Germany have started intensive diplomatic efforts to dissuade major uranium producers from selling to Iran," the newspaper said.

The Western governments accuse Tehran of trying to acquire nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy program. Iran denies the accusation and says it only wants nuclear power in order to generate electricity.

The enriched uranium required for use in nuclear reactors or weapons is produced in centrifuges that spin uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) at high speeds. The UF6 is derived in a chemical reaction from "yellow cake", a concentrate obtained from mined uranium ore.

The Times quoted sources as saying Iran had nearly exhausted its stock of yellow cake, of which it had acquired several thousand tonnes from South Africa in the mid-1970s.

A spokesperson for Britain's Foreign Office declined to confirm the Times report but said:

"It's essential to dissuade Iran from progressing towards the technology for a nuclear bomb. This risks sparking off a regional nuclear arms race. In a region which already faces huge security and other challenges, nuclear proliferation would be disastrous for stability."

The World Nuclear Association lists the top 10 uranium mining nations in 2007 as Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Niger, Namibia, Uzbekistan, the United States, Ukraine and China. Brazil was 13th.

Report: Iran short on uranium - Israel News, Ynetnews

 

[Amanda]

Western powers believe Iran is running short of raw uranium for its nuclear program and are urging producer nations not to sell to Tehran, The Times reported on Saturday.

Good!

 

[toomuchtime_]

Western powers believe Iran is running short of raw uranium for its nuclear program and are urging producer nations not to sell to Tehran, The Times reported on Saturday.

Good!

If the strategy is successful, I might go as far as to say, very good!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Despite the IAEA and many others claiming that there is a lack of evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and despite this report that they're short on uranium I do not expect our stance on Iran to change in the very least. We will continue to harass them about their alleged production of WMD's the same way we did with Iraq.

 

[DavidS]

"The fact of the matter is that the Iranians may get 2.6 kg of highly-enriched uranium, but the Pakistanis have hundreds -- thousands of kilograms of highly-enriched uranium."

Joe Biden at the DNC debate in 2007.

I think our focus needs to be at securing Pakistan. I don't think Iran is a threat. I think they've got a leader who just has a big mouth and that's about it.

 

[del]

"The fact of the matter is that the Iranians may get 2.6 kg of highly-enriched uranium, but the Pakistanis have hundreds -- thousands of kilograms of highly-enriched uranium."

Joe Biden at the DNC debate in 2007.

I think our focus needs to be at securing Pakistan. I don't think Iran is a threat. I think they've got a leader who just has a big mouth and that's about it.

well, head on over davey. we'll be rooting for you.

 

[Amanda]

Despite the IAEA and many others claiming that there is a lack of evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and despite this report that they're short on uranium I do not expect our stance on Iran to change in the very least. We will continue to harass them about their alleged production of WMD's the same way we did with Iraq.

Good!

 

[Paulie]

I can't help but think it a shame that an entire nation, including its citizens, gets screwed out of the potential for nuclear energy because of the rhetoric and actions of its government, especially without 100% rock solid proof to support the collective cause of prevention in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Despite the IAEA and many others claiming that there is a lack of evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and despite this report that they're short on uranium I do not expect our stance on Iran to change in the very least. We will continue to harass them about their alleged production of WMD's the same way we did with Iraq.

Good!

Not so good if our harassment leads to another unnecessary war over make-believe WMD's.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Despite the IAEA and many others claiming that there is a lack of evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and despite this report that they're short on uranium I do not expect our stance on Iran to change in the very least. We will continue to harass them about their alleged production of WMD's the same way we did with Iraq.

Good!

Not so good if our harassment leads to another unnecessary war over make-believe WMD's.

But you think the Iraq war would have been unnecessary even if Saddam had WMD, right? And similarly, you think that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons it's none of our business, right? Isn't that what you mean by a non interventionist foreign policy?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good!

Not so good if our harassment leads to another unnecessary war over make-believe WMD's.

But you think the Iraq war would have been unnecessary even if Saddam had WMD, right? And similarly, you think that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons it's none of our business, right? Isn't that what you mean by a non interventionist foreign policy?

Absolutely.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I can't help but think it a shame that an entire nation, including its citizens, gets screwed out of the potential for nuclear energy because of the rhetoric and actions of its government, especially without 100% rock solid proof to support the collective cause of prevention in the first place.

The Iranians seem determined to screw themselves. The Europeans have offered to supply Iran with nuclear technology that would not supply weapons grade fissionable material if Iran would only make its nuclear activities transparent, but Iran has refused, and Russia has offered to supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it would need for energy production if it would give back the spent rods for reprocessing, but Iran has refused. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy for peaceful use, why be so secretive about its program and why continue to research enrichment processes that could produce weapons grade uranium?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not so good if our harassment leads to another unnecessary war over make-believe WMD's.

But you think the Iraq war would have been unnecessary even if Saddam had WMD, right? And similarly, you think that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons it's none of our business, right? Isn't that what you mean by a non interventionist foreign policy?

Absolutely.

I predict you will never be happy with the foreign policy of any US president or of any Congress.

 

[michiganFats]

And Libertarians wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

 

[Paulie]

I can't help but think it a shame that an entire nation, including its citizens, gets screwed out of the potential for nuclear energy because of the rhetoric and actions of its government, especially without 100% rock solid proof to support the collective cause of prevention in the first place.

The Iranians seem determined to screw themselves. The Europeans have offered to supply Iran with nuclear technology that would not supply weapons grade fissionable material if Iran would only make its nuclear activities transparent, but Iran has refused, and Russia has offered to supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it would need for energy production if it would give back the spent rods for reprocessing, but Iran has refused. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy for peaceful use, why be so secretive about its program and why continue to research enrichment processes that could produce weapons grade uranium?

Like I said, without 100% rock solid proof. I'm past tired of taking Trillion dollar chances. You show me a fucking missile with a warhead that can reach the US, and we'll talk. Not Israel. Not Egypt. Not France. Not Germany. A fucking nuclear missile that can reach OUR SHORE.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And Libertarians wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

I suppose asking you to clarify exactly what we shouldn't be taken seriously about would be intellectually dishonest, right?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I can't help but think it a shame that an entire nation, including its citizens, gets screwed out of the potential for nuclear energy because of the rhetoric and actions of its government, especially without 100% rock solid proof to support the collective cause of prevention in the first place.

The Iranians seem determined to screw themselves. The Europeans have offered to supply Iran with nuclear technology that would not supply weapons grade fissionable material if Iran would only make its nuclear activities transparent, but Iran has refused, and Russia has offered to supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it would need for energy production if it would give back the spent rods for reprocessing, but Iran has refused. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy for peaceful use, why be so secretive about its program and why continue to research enrichment processes that could produce weapons grade uranium?

Like I said, without 100% rock solid proof. I'm past tired of taking Trillion dollar chances. You show me a fucking missile with a warhead that can reach the US, and we'll talk. Not Israel. Not Egypt. Not France. Not Germany. A fucking nuclear missile that can reach OUR SHORE.

So if you saw 100% rock solid proof that Iran had a nuclear missile that could reach the US, what would you want to do about it?

 

[michiganFats]

And Libertarians wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

I suppose asking you to clarify exactly what we shouldn't be taken seriously about would be intellectually dishonest, right?

No, that's a fair question. The reason(or one reason) Libertarians aren't taken seriously is their naivety on defense issues. You can't just sit back and let a nation develop the means to launch weapons of mass destruction at your allies and trading partners. The idea that you have to wait for someone to inflict massive damage before you can do anything about it is ridiculous. Especially in a case such as Iran, where the President is on record multiple times stating that he wants to use nuclear weapons, Iran has sought the materials and technical knowhow to produce nuclear weapons, yet you want to do nothing. No rational person would ever put a candidate into national office who holds that opinion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And Libertarians wonder why they aren't taken seriously.

I suppose asking you to clarify exactly what we shouldn't be taken seriously about would be intellectually dishonest, right?

No, that's a fair question. The reason(or one reason) Libertarians aren't taken seriously is their naivety on defense issues. You can't just sit back and let a nation develop the means to launch weapons of mass destruction at your allies and trading partners. The idea that you have to wait for someone to inflict massive damage before you can do anything about it is ridiculous. Especially in a case such as Iran, where the President is on record multiple times stating that he wants to use nuclear weapons, Iran has sought the materials and technical knowhow to produce nuclear weapons, yet you want to do nothing. No rational person would ever put a candidate into national office who holds that opinion.

I disagree on your assumption that we're naive on defense issues.

As I stated previously, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There's no reason to throw us into another costly war without any evidence.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I suppose asking you to clarify exactly what we shouldn't be taken seriously about would be intellectually dishonest, right?

No, that's a fair question. The reason(or one reason) Libertarians aren't taken seriously is their naivety on defense issues. You can't just sit back and let a nation develop the means to launch weapons of mass destruction at your allies and trading partners. The idea that you have to wait for someone to inflict massive damage before you can do anything about it is ridiculous. Especially in a case such as Iran, where the President is on record multiple times stating that he wants to use nuclear weapons, Iran has sought the materials and technical knowhow to produce nuclear weapons, yet you want to do nothing. No rational person would ever put a candidate into national office who holds that opinion.

I disagree on your assumption that we're naive on defense issues.

As I stated previously, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There's no reason to throw us into another costly war without any evidence.

But as a non interventionist, you would be opposed to getting into another costly war even if there were indisputable evidence Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, or was in some other way in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty, right? So why even bring up what the IAEA has found since it would not influence your decision?