chomerics Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 The Iran one. Yea, because all the terrorists that bombed us were from Iran :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Yea, because all the terrorists that bombed us were from Iran :doh: What does that have to do with the question you posed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 There is a difference between nuking mecca, and not giving them nukes. The rhetoric you and Chom are using in this thread is the same type of hysterics that leads to the showdown are having with Iran at the moment. Counterproductive and quite frankly ridiculous considering the position SA is in right now Do I like them? No. But the language that is used here to demonize the Saudi's similar to Hillary's language about obliterating Iran or Bush's Axis of Evil is quite honestly not going to get anything done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Not to break character and defend Bush in any way.. Let me say that Saudi Arabia has the money, brains, and resources to get a bomb anytime they like. Like Japan, Australia, and Egypt; they've forgone getting the bomb because they deemed it unnecessary thus far for their security, since their security has been backed up by the United States and it's nuclear assinal.Now having said that, If Iran get's the bomb the Saudi's and Egyptians have already indicated they will go nuclear too. I think handing them enriched nuclear fuel for their reactors at this point (which we are doing) is a far cry from handing them enriched nuclear fuel for a bomb (which we aren't doing), and even that is prefferable than for them creating a nuclear fuel production capacity as Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea have done. Uranium suitable for power generation is not in any way useful for weapons production.I think everyone would be happy if the Iranians would adopt this approach - we supply enriched uranium in quantities to satisfy their interest in nuclear power generation and in return they shut down their enrichment facilities provide inspection access that proves they ar not operational. So that this way, The Saudis don't build their own enrichment plants. Fewer places have that technology. We control whether they receive weapons grade materials. We know exactly how much they have. (Therefore, we know exactly what the inspectors should find, when they check up on them.) We know the exact chemical composition of their fuel. (Therefore, if any of it turns up someplace else, we'll be able to know where it came from.) Hell, I'd gladly give enriched Uranium to Iran and NK, if they'd shut down their own programs. I'd build them reactors, and provide personnel to run them, if they'd allow us to control the fuel. You bunch of unabashed Bush apologists!! The reasoned response from you gentlemen is refreshing.:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 3:30. Hmm, after noon prayer but before early evening prayer. How about 5:30 so I can get 3 prayers in today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 Uranium suitable for power generation is not in any way useful for weapons production. not correct, you can have uranium suitable for both. What is the % compisition of Uranium we are giving them, i would love to know that number. . . I think everyone would be happy if the Iranians would adopt this approach - we supply enriched uranium in quantities to satisfy their interest in nuclear power generation and in return they shut down their enrichment facilities provide inspection access that proves they ar not operational. You mean like Saddam proved there were no WMD's??? Oh wait, bad example. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 The rhetoric you and Chom are using in this thread is the same type of hysterics that leads to the showdown are having with Iran at the moment. Counterproductive and quite frankly ridiculous considering the position SA is in right nowDo I like them? No. But the language that is used here to demonize the Saudi's similar to Hillary's language about obliterating Iran or Bush's Axis of Evil is quite honestly not going to get anything done what rhetoric is it that i've spit? actually, i just asked someone to explain to me if there is a difference and said "i'm starting to see it" now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Hmm, after noon prayer but before early evening prayer. How about 5:30 so I can get 3 prayers in today? Well, what time are the most people going to be there? Im sure we can coordinate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 ok, maybe i'm starting to see this then, because this was actually helpful.but i thought that enriched uranium was the thing that Iran was trying to get its hands on that was so dangerous? are there two types or something? Uranium fission reactions require a certain level of enrichment of the isotope U235. What is suitable for power generation (2-5%) is not suitable for weapons production (typically > 80% but dependent on the design). By giving anyone all the 2-5% enriched Uranium and IN RETURN having inspection rights to facilities to make sure they weren't enriching it further, you essentially allow them to have a peaceful nuclear industry and get to regulate their supply of fuel, sell them the power plant technology etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Well, what time are the most people going to be there? Im sure we can coordinate. :laugh: So 5:30 our time here, would be about 1:30 am in Saudia Arabia. The Kabbah should be empty at that time, and all 25 residents of Mecca will be fast asleep I just won't be able to get evening or night time prayers done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyLight Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Because America's elite don't care about you and they are a bunch of greedy, hypocritical ****s. Is this news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 It absolutely won't. In fact it will do quite the opposite I admittedly don't understand the process of nuclear weapons development, how exactly does this work then? It just seems to me if they already have the enriched uranium that they would be able to use that to possibly produce more. But again, I'm unfamiliar with the process. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 What are the odds that Olberman has a problem with this also? I guess we'll get that post tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 So that this way, The Saudis don't build their own enrichment plants. Fewer places have that technology. We control whether they receive weapons grade materials. We know exactly how much they have. (Therefore, we know exactly what the inspectors should find, when they check up on them.) We know the exact chemical composition of their fuel. (Therefore, if any of it turns up someplace else, we'll be able to know where it came from.) Doesn't it make you wince to know you are giving nuclear fuel to the country that funds terrorists, gave us Whabbism and is where the 9-11 hijackers came from? Hell, I'd gladly give enriched Uranium to Iran and NK, if they'd shut down their own programs. I'd build them reactors, and provide personnel to run them, if they'd allow us to control the fuel. I would agree, but I somehow have a hard time believing that it will be an American plant under control by America running in SA. I somehow think we will be handing the fuel to them and they will do what they please with it, which is very scary IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Uranium fission reactions require a certain level of enrichment of the isotope U235. What is suitable for power generation (2-5%) is not suitable for weapons production (typically > 80% but dependent on the design).By giving anyone all the 2-5% enriched Uranium and IN RETURN having isnepction rights to facilities to make sure they weren't enriching it further, you essentially allow them to have a peaceful nuclear industry and get to regulate their supply of fuel, sell them the power plant technology etc. ok, so there is no way for them to convert it into something dangerous? then, it does make sense. one more question, WHY does Saudi Arabia need nuclear power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Hell, I'd gladly give enriched Uranium to Iran and NK, if they'd shut down their own programs. I'd build them reactors, and provide personnel to run them, if they'd allow us to control the fuel. That's exactly right. We have offered enriched uranium for Iran's civilian nuclear program through Russia already and been turned down. And our deal with North Korea calls for us to build them reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 not correct, you can have uranium suitable for both. What is the % compisition of Uranium we are giving them, i would love to know that number. . . What reactor design are the Saudi's using for you to make that claim that the weapons-grade uranium is going to be used as fuel in their power plants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I admittedly don't understand the process of nuclear weapons development, how exactly does this work then? It just seems to me if they already have the enriched uranium that they would be able to use that to possibly produce more. But again, I'm unfamiliar with the process. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Corcaigh is doing an excellent job explaining that. Post 34 for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Not to break character and defend Bush in any way.. JMS, I have new found respect for your ability to reason... I may take back some of the nasty things I said about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Dare I call this "appeasement?"Seriously, how come one day after getting all these "appeasement" rhetoric thrown at us, do we hand a mid-east country enriched uranium? Thrown at us? your a 1930's republican or a decade of English Diplomats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Thrown at us? your a 1930's republican or Neville Chamberlain? I meant by the media.... i'm still waiting for you to quote me being unfair to bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 You guys do realize that this website is probably being monitored now by the NSA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 By giving anyone all the 2-5% enriched Uranium and IN RETURN having isnepction rights to facilities to make sure they weren't enriching it further, you essentially allow them to have a peaceful nuclear industry and get to regulate their supply of fuel, sell them the power plant technology etc But it is possible for them to enrich it further? How long does the process take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 JMS, I have new found respect for your ability to reason... I may take back some of the nasty things I said about you. JMS just hates Bush (like 75 percent of the country does) He has gone to bat for the likes of Reagan and Carter also. Far less of a hack then I am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 ok, so there is no way for them to convert it into something dangerous? then, it does make sense.one more question, WHY does Saudi Arabia need nuclear power? Unfortunately that's not the case. Starting with enriched uranium you can process it more to get weapons grade components. That's certainly possible. That's one reason why Bush pulled out of the deal with North Korea which Clinton had negotiated. Here is the argument though. If we give them the fuel we also sign them up to a monitoring program and we know how much fuel they have so we can verify where it is. If they go out on their own and produce a fuel production capacity; they we are essensially blind, and they can use the same production mechanisms to refine low grade civilian refined uranium to produce high grade weapons enriched uranium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.