4 ms·

> "Iran says its nuclear programme is entirely for civil nuclear purposes." There has been no evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009. Ir

by iaw 6y ago

> "Iran says its nuclear programme is entirely for civil nuclear purposes." There has been no evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009. Iran had a 2-3 month breakout period in 2013 [0]. Stockpiling enriched uranium after stating a desire to wipe a particular country "off the map" seems to imply that there was more going on than civilian nuclear weapons. >It's pretty rich to criticize Iran for foreign meddling when describing a US assassination taking place in a country on the other side of the globe. US, Russia, and to a lesser extent China meddle the most in foreign affairs across the world. Hell, the US quite literally caused the current Iranian regime to come into existence through foreign meddling. What's your point? This doesn't convince me Iran should be refining Uranium. [0] https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2020-08/limits-breakout-estimates-assessing-irans-nuclear-program#:~:text=Fluctuations%20in%20Iran's%20Breakout,at%20about%202%2D3%20months https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2020-08/limits-brea....

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Iran had a 2-3 month breakout period in 2013 [0]. Stockpiling enriched uranium after stating a desire to wipe a particular country "off the map" seems to imply that there was more going on than civilian nuclear weapons. So still zero evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009, just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power. >What's your point? That your reason for wanting Iran to be forbidden from refining uranium is basically a fear that someday they'll be able to treat the US (or other western ally) how we treat them. If you object to that treatment, stop treating other countries like that with labels like "rogue state."
- yyyk 6y ago
  >So still zero evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009 If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have. >just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power. It's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way around.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. >t's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      >There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there. >Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die. A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there Or for the civil nuclear program. >A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people. That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," and had further elaborated that they are calling for an end to policies that are imperialist and hostile towards Iran. Similar statements are common in US politics regarding Iran.
        yyyk 6y ago
        >civil nuclear program Sure, right. Iran already receives nuclear fuel from Russia. It makes 'perfect' economic sense to risk massive sanctions to enrich 100x times the amount of 'fuel' Iran needs for a single 1000MW nuclear generation unit in Bushehr just so they could ditch their supplier. In a country with nearly free gas and oil. Which everyone accepts has done nuclear weaponization work. >You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people. I'm saying the Iranian regime kills people too, just with a slightly different cover. >That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," "Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress.

by iaw 6y ago

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>Iran had a 2-3 month breakout period in 2013 [0]. Stockpiling enriched uranium after stating a desire to wipe a particular country "off the map" seems to imply that there was more going on than civilian nuclear weapons. So still zero evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009, just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power. >What's your point? That your reason for wanting Iran to be forbidden from refining uranium is basically a fear that someday they'll be able to treat the US (or other western ally) how we treat them. If you object to that treatment, stop treating other countries like that with labels like "rogue state."

yyyk 6y ago
>So still zero evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009 If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have. >just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power. It's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way around.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. >t's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    >There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there. >Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die. A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there Or for the civil nuclear program. >A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people. That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," and had further elaborated that they are calling for an end to policies that are imperialist and hostile towards Iran. Similar statements are common in US politics regarding Iran.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        >civil nuclear program Sure, right. Iran already receives nuclear fuel from Russia. It makes 'perfect' economic sense to risk massive sanctions to enrich 100x times the amount of 'fuel' Iran needs for a single 1000MW nuclear generation unit in Bushehr just so they could ditch their supplier. In a country with nearly free gas and oil. Which everyone accepts has done nuclear weaponization work. >You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people. I'm saying the Iranian regime kills people too, just with a slightly different cover. >That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," "Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress.