Iran offers nuke know-how to islamic states

[Khaled]

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is ready to share its nuclear technology, considered to be a front for bomb-making by Washington, with other Islamic countries, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying on Thursday.

The comments were likely to heighten Western concerns about Tehran's nuclear program just ahead of a key meeting of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog this month which could decide to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for punitive action.

"The Islamic Republic never seeks weapons of mass destruction and with respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer nuclear know-how to these countries," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

The remarks were made during a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, IRNA said.

Washington and its allies say Iran has failed to provide full and timely information about its nuclear program and are alarmed that Tehran last month broke U.N. seals at a uranium processing facility.

A vote on sending Iran's nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council may be taken at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board on September 19. However, Western diplomats acknowledge that many non-aligned countries and the IAEA itself oppose referring Iran at this stage.

Seeking to avert referral to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions, Iran is engaged in intense lobbying for support from non-aligned countries at the U.N. summit.

'NOT THE PRESSING QUESTION'

Iran state media reported that Ahmadinejad, who took office last month, had also held meetings with the leaders of Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan and Chile in New York.

A British Foreign Office spokesman said it was not clear what Ahamdinejad's offer to Islamic countries involved.

"In any case, this is not the pressing question," he said. "The issue is the lack of confidence in Iran's nuclear program as a result of two decades of non-disclosures and concealment."

Should be interesting to see the reaction to this.
Seems like Iran is gonna make it very difficult on the US

 

[Amara]

This raises an interesting question to me, can and/or should we seek to dissolve nuclear know-how. It is decidedly difficult to uninvent something as extraordinary as nuclear weaponry, but it is something that has to be learnt, something that has to be taught. I am of course, speaking totally speculatively - I do not think it is possible to eradicate it. But just think hypothetically for a second, if knowledge in regards to nuclear weapons, or more particularly uranium and plutonium processing was drastically reduced - full scale censorship type shit - across the board (lol, yeah that'll happen ) could we change the dynamics of international security...? Not gonna happen, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.

Second point. The IAEA isnt strong enough. Which is a shame.

Third point. Why, in addition, to concern of proliferation of nuclear weapons in potentially dangerous states such as Iran and North Korea, isnt something being done or at least said about the mass failure of elements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in particular efforts towards disarmament of officially recognised and accepted nuclear weapon states, (US, Russia, France etc). If they do nothing to reduce their arsenal, why would they believe others should be satisfied without weapons.

Perhaps like Kenneth Waltz said, greater proliferation will make the world more stable. It would at least generate a more equal playing field. Then again, why the fuck doesnt everyone just disarm. lol!

 

[Morris]

Second point. The IAEA isnt strong enough. Which is a shame.

The United Nations had/has peacekeeping troops that could be considered a standing army. Even if the IAEA was granted these powers, the UN is too ineffective due to constant squabbles and arguments.

Perhaps like Kenneth Waltz said, greater proliferation will make the world more stable.

Kenneth Waltz was counting on more stable participants than substate fanatical groups who would gladly die and cannot be linked or tied to certain nation states.

 

[Amara]

The United Nations had/has peacekeeping troops that could be considered a standing army. Even if the IAEA was granted these powers, the UN is too ineffective due to constant squabbles and arguments.

Strength doesnt necessarily entail military might. I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that when conducting checks on nuclear facilities the IAEAs effectiveness is dependant on the openess of governments (some as we know like North Korea have locationally unknown facilities, therefore the IAEA cant properly guage the situation). Whereas if they had the coercive power, if only in diplomatic sense, to command openess of government and compliance with NPT obligations (which more about establishing dominance as a legitimate and supreme body), then perhaps there would be lesser problems. I dont necessarily believe that though, I think ultimately security concerns, or even economic will trump international law... still, it's worth considering.

Kenneth Waltz was counting on more stable participants than substate fanatical groups who would gladly die and cannot be linked or tied to certain nation states

Yeah he is a realist afterall. lol. But in considering the cases of Iran and North Korea who are nation states causing the most immediate concerns regarding nuclear weapons, who are also arguably rational actors... despite what rhetoric we hear over rogue regimes... then the deterrent basis of realist theory provides good reason to believe there could be greater stability. You have to wonder whether any actor other than a state would be able to "possess" nuclear weapons. If they were somehow able to buy or steal or whatever, how would they logistically be capable of both storing or deploying it? Conceivably it might be possible but surely the likelihood is pretty small.

 

[Jurhum]

You know what I find funny? Iran and N. Korea is all we hear about regarding the imminent threat to world peace? Why is that? Maybe because they never conform to US interests. Yet on the same level lies Israel. Israel is a threat to Arab countries and has obtained mass nuclear weapons. However, we never hear about it being on the Axis of evil? What makes Iran or N. Korea evil? Has Iran used its nuclear weapons, if it has any, to bomb any country, like the US did? Has Iran invade any country, like the US did or Israel did?

No, we are fed this propaganda that Iran and N. Korea are evil; therefore we believe they are without substantiated evidence; that they have or will act on destroying any nation in the future for no apparent reason?

This is really ridiculous.

On the topic, just like the US have the right to give know-how to any state it desires, Iran reserves that same right, for every country is the same. And, mind you that the key word here is Islamic. So, it’s a threat now being a Muslim? It’s that dangerous. O my lord.

How fucking retarded.

 

[Amara]

You know what I find funny? Iran and N. Korea is all we hear about regarding the imminent threat to world peace? Why is that? Maybe because they never conform to US interests. Yet on the same level lies Israel. Israel is a threat to Arab countries and has obtained mass nuclear weapons. However, we never hear about it being on the Axis of evil? What makes Iran or N. Korea evil? Has Iran used its nuclear weapons, if it has any, to bomb any country, like the US did? Has Iran invade any country, like the US did or Israel did?

No, we are fed this propaganda that Iran and N. Korea are evil; therefore we believe they are without substantiated evidence; that they have or will act on destroying any nation in the future for no apparent reason?

The thing I find funny is that reading statements from North Korea, their logical is entirely rational. It's straight-forward like this: "We feel threatened by the imperialistic motivations of the US and desire not be attacked, therefore we have acquired nuclear weapons as a deterrent." What makes them evil? Being communist. They are a poor, poor country... a large part of their economy is fed into the military which arguably starves the rest of the country... yet their security concerns could be easily assuaged if they werent constantly threatened and in fear for the survival of their regime and state. The US gives money to them through KEDO, therefore looking like a martyr yet ironically enough directs a course of action by which security tension and nuclear proliferation is a foregone conclusion.

 

[The.Menace]

I agree with Jurhum. It's a funny thing that the west feels like ithas the right to own those weapons and others don't. I really miss the logic in this way of thinkin.

And I seriously don't agree with you Amara here. beeing communist doesn't make you evil at all, it's evil the the view of the US but why they think like that noone really knows. But why does the US set the standard on what's evil and what's good? For me they don't. What does make Nkora a danger is a unpredicdable leader but on a second thought, the US have one as well.

Over all, noone should have nukes. But this feeling/thinking that only 'we' as 'good' nations are allowed to have them is bullshit.

 

[Glockmatic]

I think all countries should be able to make Light Water nuclear plants to relieve the worlds use of oil for energy

 

[Amara]

And I seriously don't agree with you Amara here. beeing communist doesn't make you evil at all, it's evil the the view of the US but why they think like that noone really knows. But why does the US set the standard on what's evil and what's good? For me they don't. What does make Nkora a danger is a unpredicdable leader but on a second thought, the US have one as well.

Over all, noone should have nukes. But this feeling/thinking that only 'we' as 'good' nations are allowed to have them is bullshit.

lol, you think that is what I was saying?! I dont believe they are evil... damn I've spent a year writing a thesis on how their decision making is rational and caused as a result of insecurity largely driven by the hostility of the US. My point was, why does the world hate North Korea? They are a poor communist state - the last on the Cold War agenda... they arent evil, they are a struggling country with a struggling regime - even if they wanted to carry out 'evil plans' they arent in a position to... nuclear weapons are for deterrents and as a last ditch effort against invasion and erradication of the regime - that is not evil, that is realism in its purest. The adherence to moral rhetoric makes no sense.

I've always believed in disarmament... theoretically all parties to the NPT should as well. It's all a great double standard.

 

[Jurhum]

^ that's what i thought u meant.. lol.. he got me confused for a second.. he agreed with me yet at the same time disagreed with you. when you stated/ implied that you agreed with me.. to much agree-mation lol

 

[The.Menace]

Sorry, I haven't had slept for more then 40 hours before I replied.

It's all a great double standard.

yes it is.