Interesting analysis of the Iranian situation

[shamrock_uk]

Enjoy. I really want to see this undercover film he made (next week I think) but the Q&A is still interesting.

Of particular note is that apparently under the Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran has a right to nuclear energy and both Britain and America have an obligation to help

[Azred]

Let's make a break from Washington and actually think logically here.

Nuclear energy is, in the long run, cleaner than oil. There are no tankers with vulnerable hulls that could leak crude oil into the ocean, there is a dramatic reduction in potential greenhouse gases being produced, and--contrary to popular belief--spent nuclear fuel could be safely shipped via spacecraft to be stored on the Moon where it could irradiate no one.
Strangely enough, it's almost as if Washington wants to force Iran to remain dependent upon the oil industry because we are dependent upon it. Or maybe that isn't so strange.... [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

Iran is as likely to develop a nuclear weapon at this point as Bush is to wear a pink teddy on TV and sing "I'm A Little Teapot". Timber's argument that all nations should have nuclear weapons makes itself known here, because if Iran did produce a nuclear weapon then the US would have to sit down at the negotiating table with them; that is something we wouldn't like but could do. Israel, on the other hand...they will never allow themselves to sit down at the negotiating table unless they have all the advantages.

As with everything, if you ask yourself "who will benefit most from a certain set of circumstances happening?" and then realize that the set of circumstances is "Iran has no nuclear energy capability" the likely answer is "multinational oil corporations".

Conspiracy theory? Perhaps.
Practical reality? Probably so. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Seraph]

Nuclear energy is, in the long run, cleaner than oil. There are no tankers with vulnerable hulls that could leak crude oil into the ocean, there is a dramatic reduction in potential greenhouse gases being produced, and--contrary to popular belief--spent nuclear fuel could be safely shipped via spacecraft to be stored on the Moon where it could irradiate no one.

How do you figure? We can't even launch satalites into orbit with an acceptable success rate, but you think it would be safe to ship radioactive waste to the moon? Out of 53 orbital launches in 2004, there were 4 failures (2 US, 1 Russian, 1 Isreali). Out of 61 launches on 2003 there were 4 failures (The US Space Shuttle Columbia, 1 Brazilian, 1 Japanese, 1 Chinese). Tje US also had a failure in 2001, 4 in 1999, 2 in 1998, 1 in 1997 (the list goes on).

[Azred]

The numbers you cite amount to a 7% failure rate; this, of course, translates into a 93% success rate. That is good enough to risk launching radioactive waste on a trip to the Moon. Like I said, it would be better to bury it there than keep it here.