If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!

[AzizMostafa]

2. If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?
3. Has US signed the IAEA or NPT treaty? Or it will?
4. Why do those who did not sign the NPT have the right to build a nuclear bomb?
5. Why are those who signed the NPT not allowed to go after civilian nuclear technology?
6. Why has US been depriving Iran of spare parts for passenger planes for 27 years? Are they used in NP?
7. What guarantees that Iran will be provided with nuclear fuel if it accepts producing it elsewhere?
8. Why do US+allies have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and threaten the security of the middle east?
9 Did Iran ever drop a nuclear bomb on any neighbour or any remote land as US did in Hiroshima?
10 Will US drop nuclear bombs on Iran if all means fail to stop it from building a nuclear reactor?
____________________________________
Peace+Flowers

[Cognescenti]

2. If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?

The Russians, Chinese, French, British, Israelis, Pakistanis and Indians have them. I'm not sure anyone asked permission :) The technology was shared with Britain as a result of their help in development and Allied status in WWII. The Russians stole some of the technology but could have done it on their own given time.

3. Has US signed the IAEA or NPT treaty? Or it will?

The NPT was proposed in 1968. The US already had the bomb for 23 yrs. A little late don't you think? That is a bit like telling someone to sell their stocks in 1930 :)

4. Why do those who did not sign the NPT have the right to build a nuclear bomb?

The DO have a legal right. It is a question of the wisdom of the move and the international implications.

5. Why are those who signed the NPT not allowed to go after civilian nuclear technology?

Several international offers have included Russian supply of fissile material for the Iranians. They could buy it MUCH cheaper than they could make it...but it is all about internal fuel reprocessing and uranium enrichment....hmmm..I wonder why that is?

6. Why has US been depriving Iran of spare parts for passenger planes for 27 years? Are they used in NP?

No, it is called an economic sanction. I'm not sure but I think it has soemthing to do with the Embassy seizure, support for hezbollah, hostage taking in Lebanon, the mining of the Persian Gulf...yada yada yada

7. What guarantees that Iran will be provided with nuclear fuel if it accepts producing it elsewhere?

They would have a treaty, but of course, the Russians might abridge the treaty. This is unlikely as they would be amking money off the deal. On the other hand, the Iranians do have a virtual guarantee something bad will happen if they persist

8. Why do US+allies have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and threaten the security of the middle east?

The US has had opportunities to use nukes after WWII... they haven't. Your question is like asking why the 600 lb gorilla has big muscles.

9 Did Iran ever drop a nuclear bomb on any neighbour or any remote land as US did in Hiroshima?

No...haven't we established they don't have on yet? Of course, the Iranian President did threaten to wipe Israel off the map.

10 Will US drop nuclear bombs on Iran if all means fail to stop it from building a nuclear reactor?

Nope...just lots of conventional explosives.
____________________________________
Peace+Flowers[/QUOTE]

[AzizMostafa]

Cognescenti thankfully replies:
3. The NPT was proposed in 1968. The US already had the bomb for 23 yrs.
A little late don't you think? That is a bit like telling someone to sell their stocks in 1930.

Say: It is never late for an adulterer to repent? The door of repentance is always open?!
__________________________________________________
4. Why do those who did not sign the NPT have the right to build a nuclear bomb?
The DO have a legal right. It is a question of the wisdom of the move and the international implications.

Say: No, It is a question of double-standard. It has something to do with the Islamic Revolution,
support for Israel, hostage taking in Lebanon, the downing of 290+passengers in the Persian Gulf...yada+2
__________________________________________________ ___
5. Why are those who signed the NPT not allowed to go after civilian nuclear technology?
Several international offers have included Russian supply of fissile material for the Iranians.
They could buy it MUCH cheaper than they could make it...but it is all about internal fuel reprocessing
and uranium enrichment....hmmm..I wonder why that is?

Say: According to international law, any country that sells airplanes should also sell spare parts to the buyers?!
That is a bit like talking with a people who are behind the times?!
_________________________________________________
7. What guarantees that Iran will be provided with nuclear fuel if it accepts producing it elsewhere?
.... the Iranians do have a virtual guarantee something bad will happen if they persist
.... the Iranians do have a virtual guarantee something bad will happen if they do not resist.
________________________________________________
8. The US has had opportunities to use nukes after WWII... they haven't.
Yes. Instead of dropping one bomb on one place. It is better to drop MOBS on different places?!

Your question is like asking why the 600 lb gorilla has big muscles.
Where are the 600+lb gorillas of yesterday? The Romans + The Persians?
________________________________________________
9 Of course, the Iranian President did threaten to wipe Israel off the map.
Wrongfully created+named Israel is just a bubble. It needs a comb(tooth) not a bomb?!
________________________________________________
10 Lots of (non)conventional explosives could not conquer Hizbullah of Lebanon?!
____________________________________
Peace+Flowers

[Joe98]

If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?

Iran has stated over and over again that it is not planning to produce nuclear weapons.

And therefore your question makes no sense.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Pygoscelis]

I don't believe for a second that Iran is not seeking to produce nuclear weaponry. And I couldn't fault them for it. They pretty much have to given the climate they are in. It is the only proven deterent against US aggression. The threat against Iran is much stronger than that against any other country that has developed nuclear weapons.

[wilberhum]

Iran has stated over and over again that it is not planning to produce nuclear weapons.

And therefore your question makes no sense.

If that they state is true, why not allow inspections? :skeleton:

[Idris]

No...haven't we established they don't have on yet? Of course, the Iranian President did threaten to wipe Israel off the map.

I see that your Zionists friends have being spoon-feeding you information.
Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

But me saying this is not going to help anyone. Do some research ... google it do something or then just getting feed info.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...e+Search&meta=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ

[*Hana*]

Iran has stated over and over again that it is not planning to produce nuclear weapons.

And therefore your question makes no sense.

You know what's funny?? Israel said the same thing!! Why weren't they bombed for lying? Why weren't they bombed for refusing to allow inspectors in? Let's see: Israel and the USA do not have to follow the UN, BUT, Iraq and Iran do....or they are bombed or threatened to be bombed, (even when they are 100% innocent!!)

And people wonder why there is animosity towards the Israeli and American governments?? :rollseyes

Hana

[wilberhum]

You know what's funny?? Israel said the same thing!! Why weren't they bombed for lying? Why weren't they bombed for refusing to allow inspectors in? Let's see: Israel and the USA do not have to follow the UN, BUT, Iraq and Iran do....or they are bombed or threatened to be bombed, (even when they are 100% innocent!!)

And people wonder why there is animosity towards the Israeli and American governments?? :rollseyes

Hana

Who has threatened to bomb Iran? :?

[*Hana*]

How typical a response....I'm not at all surprised. Never mind the BIG picture and the point....just divert it by asking a stupid question. But, just so you can comprehend, here is one quote...you're on the net....look it up.

Israeli Military Sources Threaten Tactical Strikes Against Iran (oh, maybe they meant throwing Styrofoam balls or small rock tossing...silly me)

[England]

We have nuclear missiles but we can be trusted not to use them. Our nuclear missiles are merely deterrants. Iran cannot be trusted with with nukes as they have already threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." We might aswell hand Al-qaeda nuclear bombs...

[Cognescenti]

I see that your Zionists friends have being spoon-feeding you information.
Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."

But me saying this is not going to help anyone. Do some research ... google it do something or then just getting feed info.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...e+Search&meta=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ

Firstly, I don't have any "Zionist" friends. In fact, I have never even met anyone who introduced himself as a Zionist. By your usage, in fact, "Zionist" is the "N-word" of the ME. You would have a lot more credibility with "Westerners" if you stopped using it.

As to your second point...Amedinajad spoke in Farsi so your point has some validity. One can always argue about translations, escpecially in
the case of idioms.

Let's look at how the Middle East Media Research Institute translated it:

"[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history"

Oh..that makes me feel a lot better. Look...the English expression doesn't really mean that the present topography of the State of Israel be literally scraped clean with an army of bulldozers. It means that it would cease to exist. Amadinajad seems not merely content with eleminating the "regime" in Israel....he seems to want to remove all historical references. If that doesn't mean "cease to exist" I dont know what does. What "regime" do you imagine he is talking about? Does he want Netanyahu back?

Also note he doesnt even call "Jerusalem", Jerusalem. Add the fact that he hosted a Holocost deniers conference and sensible people are going to start to wonder what the chap is up to.

[wilberhum]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...FFB1581928.htm

The display showed off regiment after regiment of ground forces, tanks, a new set of drones and medium-range Nazeat (Meteor) missiles one of which was inscribed with "Death to Israel".
We want friendly and just relations with all the peoples except the Zionist regime," he said.

Does anyone realy think Ahmadinejad wants nuks for peace?

[Trumble]

You know what's funny?? Israel said the same thing!! Why weren't they bombed for lying? Why weren't they bombed for refusing to allow inspectors in?

Er, no. The Israelis acquired nuclear weapons before anybody, except the French, even knew they were trying to do so. That includes the Americans.

Actually, they never have denied having nuclear weapons and not actually 'admitting' it amounts to no more than a diplomatic nicety. It has always been essential to Israeli security that their possession of nuclear weapons was known to the Arab countries, otherwise there was little point in actually having them. They have never refused inspections, either.. as for obvious reasons nobody has ever suggested sending any. What would be the point?

As to Iranian nukes, I'd be far more worried about them if I was (taking Israel as a given) Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Lebanese or Egyptian than I am as a Brit or would be if I was American.

[*Hana*]

Er, no. The Israelis acquired nuclear weapons before anybody, except the French, even knew they were trying to do so. That includes the Americans.

Actually, they never have denied having nuclear weapons and not actually 'admitting' it amounts to no more than a diplomatic nicety. It has always been essential to Israeli security that their possession of nuclear weapons was known to the Arab countries, otherwise there was little point in actually having them. They have never refused inspections, either.. as for obvious reasons nobody has ever suggested sending any. What would be the point?

As to Iranian nukes, I'd be far more worried about them if I was (taking Israel as a given) Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Lebanese or Egyptian than I am as a Brit or would be if I was American.

Ahhh LOL yeah, you might wanna do yourself a little more reading!! And ummm, excuse me....it is ISRAEL that HAS threatened to use "small" nukes on Iran. Again, you're on the net too....look it up!

Whether or not Iran is/isn't responsible enough to have the nukes, isn't really the question here. It is the double standard and who gave one country the right to determine that. The USA, that has committed hundreds of thousands of terrorist acts, and continues to do so, has the nerve to tell another country they are not responsible?? Gimme a break!

I'm not getting into a P*ssing match with you and a couple others on this thread that are too blind to see the reality of what is going on in the world today. As I said, whether or not I feel a particular country is responsible enough to have any type of weapon is not at all the issue here. The USA and Israel need to clean their own backyards before concerning themselves with others. They are more of a threat to their own citizens than any other country!

Hana

[Cognescenti]

Ahhh LOL yeah, you might wanna do yourself a little more reading!! And ummm, excuse me....it is ISRAEL that HAS threatened to use "small" nukes on Iran. Again, you're on the net too....look it up!

Whether or not Iran is/isn't responsible enough to have the nukes, isn't really the question here. It is the double standard and who gave one country the right to determine that. The USA, that has committed hundreds of thousands of terrorist acts, and continues to do so, has the nerve to tell another country they are not responsible?? Gimme a break!

I'm not getting into a P*ssing match with you and a couple others on this thread that are too blind to see the reality of what is going on in the world today. As I said, whether or not I feel a particular country is responsible enough to have any type of weapon is not at all the issue here. The USA and Israel need to clean their own backyards before concerning themselves with others. They are more of a threat to their own citizens than any other country!

Hana

Israel already HAS nukes. They didn't ask permission from the US, they were jsut better at concealing it than the Iranians. :) You are going to need an army with 50,000 tanks to take them away. Given past examples of previous Arab efforts to exterminate Israel, I'm not even sure 50,000 would be enough.

It's like this. ANY effort at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons will necessarily involve an unequal otcome vis a vis the possession of nuclear weapons. That is the whole bloody point!

The US opposed Pakistan and India building nukes. Not that it did any good. It is a very hard thing to stop once a country has its mind set. Look what good it did them too. It has increased tensions between the two countries. What good has it done for th PRK? They finally ticked off the Chinese.

The Iranians need to take a sober look at what price they will pay, either with direct military confrontation, or with interantional isolaton should they persist. Nobody believes their idiotic "nukes for energy" claim.

BTW...you are prudent to avoid a "P*ssing match", as you so delicately put it.. I don't think it is something that females would be good at.

[Woodrow]

Sometimes I think we should demand and require every nation to have a nuke stock pile. It would be one way we and Russia could get rid of the darn things. They are a white elephant for any country to own and they soon own the country instead of the country owning them. They really do limit a countries ability to conduct conventional war and are expensive pets to keep.

Done with rant. I'm only going to answer the first question right now.

2. If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?

They are not a good thing and few countries can afford to keep one without depriving it's citizens of necessities. The up keep placed into the military budget will reduce the size of the military the country can afford. Stupid to give up your military, for one thing you can use only once and then be defenseless. The reason the US doesn't want other countries to have them is the more that have them the more likely they will be used. When a country goes into poverty trying to support a nuclear arms program, it will almost be forced to engage in hostilities in hopes of expansion.

Before I get asked, "Why don't the US and Russia get rid of the thousands of them they have stockpiled?" Because we have no means to dispose of them. The junk inside of them is so hazardous there is no safe way to get rid or it. Ift is best to leave them as they are until a feasable means is found to get rid of them. It has been at least 30 years since the US or Russia last built a nuclear weapon. There is a reason they are not building any more, and it is not because they are being nice.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you England;

We have nuclear missiles but we can be trusted not to use them.

Ah but can you be trusted never to use any other kind of bomb? That’s a crazy logic how many thousands of people have been killed as a result of America and Britain using all other kinds of bombs?

Our nuclear missiles are merely deterrants. Iran cannot be trusted with with nukes as they have already threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." We might aswell hand Al-qaeda nuclear bombs...

If America and Britain really want other nations to stop producing nuclear weapons, they should start decommissioning their own first

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

[*Hana*]

Israel is now the only state with nuclear weapons that does not admit to having such weapons. It has always refused to allow international inspection of the Dimona facility, and is among the few states that have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/892941.stm

Since 1955, Israel has been in violation of 71 U.N. resolutions.

1. General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947): the 1947 Partition plan of Palestine and the creation of Israel […]
2. General Assembly Resolution 194 (1947): Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel […]
3. Resolution 106 (1955): condemns Israel for Gaza raid […]
4. Resolution 111 (1956): condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people […]
5. Resolution 127 (1958): recommends Israel suspend its no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem […]
6. Resolution 162 (1961): urges Israel to comply with UN decisions […]
7. Resolution 171 (1962): determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria […]
8. Resolution 228 (1966): censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control […]
9. Resolution 237 (1967): urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees […]
10. Resolution 242 (1967): Israel’s occupation of Palestine is Illegal […]
11. Resolution 248 (1968): condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan […]
12. Resolution 250 (1968): calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem […]
13. Resolution 251 (1968): deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250 […]
14. Resolution 252 (1968): declares invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital […]
15. Resolution 256 (1968): condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation […]
16. Resolution 259 (1968): deplores Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation […]
17. Resolution 262 (1968): condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport […]
18. Resolution 265 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan […]
19. Resolution 267 (1969): censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem […]
20. Resolution 270 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon […]
21. Resolution 271 (1969): condemns Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem […]
22. Resolution 279 (1970): demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon […]
23. Resolution 280 (1970): condemns Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon […]
24. Resolution 285 (1970): demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon […]
25. Resolution 298 (1971): deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem […]
26. Resolution 313 (1972): demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon […]
27. Resolution 316 (1972): condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon […]
28. Resolution 317 (1972): deplores Israel’s refusal to release […]
29. Resolution 332 (1973): condemns Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon […]
30. Resolution 337 (1973): condemns Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty […]
31. Resolution 347 (1974): condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon […]
32. General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974): affirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine to self-determination without external interference and to national independence and sovereignty […]
33. Resolution 425 (1978): calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon […]
34. Resolution 427 (1978): calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon […]
35. Resolution 444 (1979): deplores Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces […]
36. Resolution 446 (1979): determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention […]
37. Resolution 450 (1979): calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon […]
38. Resolution 452 (1979): calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories […]
39. Resolution 465 (1980): deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program […]
40. Resolution 467 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon […]
41. Resolution 468 (1980): calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return […]
42. Resolution 469 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians […]
43. Resolution 471 (1980): expresses deep concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention […]
44. Resolution 476 (1980): reiterates that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are null and void […]
45. Resolution 478 (1980): censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law […]
46. Resolution 484 (1980): declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors […]
47. Resolution 487 (1981): strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility […]
48. Resolution 497 (1981): decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith […]
49. Resolution 498 (1981): calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon […]
50. Resolution 501 (1982): calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops […]
51. Resolution 509 (1982): demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon […]
52. Resolution 515 (1982): demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in […]
53. Resolution 517 (1982): censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon […]
54. Resolution 518 (1982): demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon […]
55. Resolution 520 (1982): condemns Israel’s attack into West Beirut […]
56. Resolution 573 (1985): condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters […]
57. Resolution 587 (1986): takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw […]
58. Resolution 592 (1986): strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops […]
59. Resolution 605 (1987): strongly deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians […]
60. Resolution 607 (1988): calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention […]
61. Resolution 608 (1988): deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians […]
62. Resolution 636 (1989): deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians […]
63. Resolution 641 (1989): deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians […]
64. Resolution 672 (1990): condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount […]
65. Resolution 673 (1990): deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations […]
66. Resolution 681 (1990): deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians […]
67. Resolution 694 (1991): deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return […]
68. Resolution 726 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians […]
69. Resolution 799 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return […]
70. Resolution 1397 (2002): affirms a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders […]
71. General Assembly Resolution ES-10/15 (2004): declares the wall built inside the occupied territories as contrary to international law and asks Israel to demolish it […]

It's against our U.S. law and international law for our Congress to fund and arm any nation in violation of U.N. resolutions and international law, such as World Record Holder Israel, with a whopping 71 U.N. resolutions violated - in particular, U.N. resolution 242 whereupon Israel was ordered OUT of Palestine. To this day, Israel has yet to comply.

One of many sources

The question that you have ALL refused to answer is the DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

Where are the sanctions for Israel? The USA and British forces have killed over 1 million people since US imposed sanctions in Iraq over a LIE.....yet Israel is continuing to violate UN resolutions and NOTHING is done...and we KNOW that's the TRUTH!! The USA and Britain ILLEGALLY invaded Iraq completely ignoring the UN and the majority of the world...where are the sanctions?

Do none of you get that? What part of that do you NOT understand?

And, Cognescenti, don't assume you know what talents I may or may not possess. Never assume anything. :)

Hana

[*Hana*]

Sometimes I think we should demand and require every nation to have a nuke stock pile. It would be one way we and Russia could get rid of the darn things. They are a white elephant for any country to own and they soon own the country instead of the country owning them. They really do limit a countries ability to conduct conventional war and are expensive pets to keep.

Done with rant. I'm only going to answer the first question right now.



They are not a good thing and few countries can afford to keep one without depriving it's citizens of necessities. The up keep placed into the military budget will reduce the size of the military the country can afford. Stupid to give up your military, for one thing you can use only once and then be defenseless. The reason the US doesn't want other countries to have them is the more that have them the more likely they will be used. When a country goes into poverty trying to support a nuclear arms program, it will almost be forced to engage in hostilities in hopes of expansion.

Before I get asked, "Why don't the US and Russia get rid of the thousands of them they have stockpiled?" Because we have no means to dispose of them. The junk inside of them is so hazardous there is no safe way to get rid or it. Ift is best to leave them as they are until a feasable means is found to get rid of them. It has been at least 30 years since the US or Russia last built a nuclear weapon. There is a reason they are not building any more, and it is not because they are being nice.

Very true, brother. Sadly, we only have to look at the nuclear ships rotting in Russia, the lack of maintenance on the Chernobyl Power Plant to see the effect nuclear power can have on the entire world. It is definitely NOT a "good" weapon to have for any country...I absolutely agree. Quite frankly, I question the use of it for a power source. Too much is unknown about it.

Unfortunately, as long as some countries feel they are at risk without it to protect themselves, there will always this "fight". Simply, one country cannot tell another country NOT to have them, while they themselves have them, regardless of the reason. My frustration comes from the Israeli government that refuses to admit what it has, refuses to allow inspectors, refuses to sign anything, and yet....the USA continues to give them financial and arms support on a regular basis.

Anyway, nothing will change as long as there are those who try to justify the right for one country to have them and not another. Nothing will change as long as a select few are permitted to commit atrocities on another without consequences while others are forced to suffer.

My rant :X

wasalam,
Hana

[Cognescenti]

Israel is now the only state with nuclear weapons that does not admit to having such weapons. It has always refused to allow international inspection of the Dimona facility, and is among the few states that have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/892941.stm
<snip>
The question that you have ALL refused to answer is the DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

Where are the sanctions for Israel? The USA and British forces have killed over 1 million people since US imposed sanctions in Iraq over a LIE.....yet Israel is continuing to violate UN resolutions and NOTHING is done...and we KNOW that's the TRUTH!! The USA and Britain ILLEGALLY invaded Iraq completely ignoring the UN and the majority of the world...where are the sanctions?

Do none of you get that? What part of that do you NOT understand?

And, Cognescenti, don't assume you know what talents I may or may not possess. Never assume anything. :)

Hana

I am beginning to think you don't like Israel. why would Israel sign the NPT when the public secret is they already have nukes? That makes no sense. When they are non-signatories they do not have to allow international isnpections. They chose not to sign for a reason. You can say it is a double standard all you want but it is a bit like starting a farm in the Sahara and then complaining about the lousy rainfall. I think it is fair to say the US and Western Europe are not worried that the Israelis are going to use a nuke on them. In fact, the Israelis have been through at least one war in which their existence was threatened (1973) and the elected not to use nukes. Let's just say that such a level of confidence does not exist in regard to Iran. This isn't about "fairness". It's not a cricket game. This is about avoiding WWIII and nuclear armagedon in the Mideast. BTW, while we are on the subject of cheating....Iran lied to the IAEA and got busted. You can see why there is a credibility issue (among other reasons).

You want sanctions on Israel...YOU do it. Fine with me.

Then there is this: "The USA and British forces have killed over 1 million people since US imposed sanctions in Iraq over a LIE..."

When making a wildly hyperbolic statement of this sort, be prepared to back it up. Are you talking about UN sanctions? 1 million??? Please, that is preposterous. And, please tell us what "LIE" you are taking about. Come to think of it...never mind it will be off topic.


"And, Cognescenti, don't assume you know what talents I may or may not possess. Never assume anything. :)"

Aj carmaba! :-[

[*Hana*]

I am beginning to think you don't like Israel. why would Israel sign the NPT when the public secret is they already have nukes? That makes no sense. When they are non-signatories they do not have to allow international isnpections. They chose not to sign for a reason. You can say it is a double standard all you want but it is a bit like starting a farm in the Sahara and then complaining about the lousy rainfall. I think it is fair to say the US and Western Europe are not worried that the Israelis are going to use a nuke on them. In fact, the Israelis have been through at least one war in which their existence was threatened (1973) and the elected not to use nukes. Let's just say that such a level of confidence does not exist in regard to Iran. This isn't about "fairness". It's not a cricket game. This is about avoiding WWIII and nuclear armagedon in the Mideast. BTW, while we are on the subject of cheating....Iran lied to the IAEA and got busted. You can see why there is a credibility issue (among other reasons).

You want sanctions on Israel...YOU do it. Fine with me.

Then there is this: "The USA and British forces have killed over 1 million people since US imposed sanctions in Iraq over a LIE..."

When making a wildly hyperbolic statement of this sort, be prepared to back it up. Are you talking about UN sanctions? 1 million??? Please, that is preposterous. And, please tell us what "LIE" you are taking about. Come to think of it...never mind it will be off topic.


"And, Cognescenti, don't assume you know what talents I may or may not possess. Never assume anything. :)"

Aj carmaba! :-[

The LIE that you question is the LIE that virtually every person on the planet has heard the USA Government admit to on more than once occasion. Remember all the missing WMD that they KNEW were in Iraq? Notice how the war in Iraq went from protecting the USA from the mean ole', WMD welding Iraqis to the "war on terror". Did you conveniently forget about all the pretty words Bush uses to "justify" his war?

Aside from the 200,000 Iraqis slaughtered during the Gulf War, an additional 1.5 million civilians have died since 1991 as a result of the sanctions, according to UNICEF reports and the Red Cross, many from what normally would be treatable and curable illnesses. Of these victims, 600,000 are children under 5 years of age. Maternal mortality rates have more than doubled, and 70 percent of Iraqi women suffer from anemia. Given the tons of depleted uranium used during the Allied attacks, cancer rates have skyrocketed: the childhood leukemia rate is now the highest in the world. Most of the leukemia increase is in southern Iraq where the bombing was heaviest.

The United States destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure of Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. Over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians were killed because of the war: Philadelphia Inquirer, January 2003Philadelphia: “…158,000 Iraqi men, women and children died during and shortly after the Persian Gulf war.”

Since then hundreds of thousands have died because of U.S. imposed sanctions:

“While estimates vary, many independent authorities assert that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under five have died since 1990, in part as a result of the sanctions and the effects of the Gulf War. An August 1999 Unicef report found that the under-five mortality rate in Iraq has more than doubled since the imposition of sanctions.”

U.S. Navy Secretary John Lehman estimated that 200,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War, but many more have died since. UNICEF estimates that well over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S-led sanctions regime, in place for the last decade. Some 500,000 children have died, and an estimated 4,000 die from various preventable, sanctions-related diseases, every month, says the U.N. agency.

How many more statistics would you like. And notice they all use the same US IMPOSED SANCTIONS?? I'm surprised you even questioned that as it has been an accepted phrase since the US IMPOSED SANCTIONS. By the way, I was being very generous in the numbers...I said over 1 million SINCE the US imposed sanctions. Many sources say over 1 million BECAUSE of the sanctions and far more since the illegal invasion. So, my stated 1 million was significantly lower.

You can try to justify Israel having nuclear power while they and the USA doesn't want any other country in the world to have them...but when they turn around and use them on their "friends" one day, remember this post. :)

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with Israelis, just as I have no problem at all with Americans. I do, however, have a major problem with their corrupt governments, which as I have said, are more of a threat to their own people than any outside forces are.

Hana

[Keltoi]

If every country in the world had nuclear weapons would the world be a safer place? Would mutually assured destruction stay the hand of every world leader and dictator? Possession of nuclear weapons probably stopped the U.S. and the Soviet Union from world war, but I don't believe M.A.D.(mutually assured destruction) will stop every country from using this technology.

[wilberhum]

If every country in the world had nuclear weapons would the world be a safer place? Would mutually assured destruction stay the hand of every world leader and dictator? Possession of nuclear weapons probably stopped the U.S. and the Soviet Union from world war, but I don't believe M.A.D.(mutually assured destruction) will stop every country from using this technology.

I was just thinking just how much safer I would feel if every man, woman, and child carried a gun. :skeleton:

[Keltoi]

I was just thinking just how much safer I would feel if every man, woman, and child carried a gun. :skeleton:

That sort of goes along with a study I heard about on the radio today. It seems gun violence has increased with the increase in gun control measures. Perhaps if more victims had firearms there would be less victims.

[Pygoscelis]

That sort of goes along with a study I heard about on the radio today. It seems gun violence has increased with the increase in gun control measures. Perhaps if more victims had firearms there would be less victims.

Chicago and Toronto are similar in size, population, and culture. Toronto has very strict gun control, Chicago has more lax control. Toronto, on a bad year, has 40 gun homocides. Chicago, on a bad year, has 400 gun homocides. That alone should speak volumes. It is at the very least a very strong correlation.

The proposition that the answer to gun crime is to ADD MORE GUNS is nonsensical.

[Woodrow]

I was just thinking just how much safer I would feel if every man, woman, and child carried a gun. :skeleton:

I didn't know you had moved here to Texas?


Odd thing ever since Texas legalized concealed weapons it seems less people are carrying them. speaking for myself I used to always carry a hand gun. But I stopped carrying one about 5 years ago and no longer even own any fire arms.

Individuals can be trusted a lot further than Nations can. It would be very rapid chaos if every Nation had nukes. The biggest problem is the smaller nations would be forced to use them. They are very expensive to keep and they will ruin a military budget of a small country very fast, leaving them with the discovery that they can no longer afford a standing military unless they use the Nukes and try to gain more territory.

[wilberhum]

I didn't know you had moved here to Texas?

Now that's really funney. I moved from Dallas to Seattle in July, 2005.
I hated Texas. Now that I'm in Washington, it dosn't look so bad.
But I have to find a better sign for my scarcasm. I say junk that is so off base that I think it is impossable that any one would take it seriously. But guess what? People take dumb statements and eat them up.

Safer if everyone carries a gun!
Amazing, :skeleton:
Wilber

[Keltoi]

There are actually people, myself included, who believe the right to carry concealed weapons is a good thing. Perhaps that is the effect of my Okie/Texas upbringing, but that is how I feel. I guess it is different when you are raised in a gun culture.

We should probably stay on topic though...

[Woodrow]

What do nuclear weapons cost a nation? Here in the US because of them we have seen a drop in education standards, a reduced size conventional military, reduced health care for the elderly etc.

Here we see nuclear weapons spending ranked against all other federal government spending from 1940-1996, as documented by the Office of Management and Budget. The bar at a the extreme left is for national defense and totals $13.2 trillion. We have deducted our estimate of nuclear weapons-related spending from this bar. Next comes Social Security, at a nearly $7.9 trillion. Bear in mind however that much of this is not spending per se but funds collected from payroll taxes and redistributed to older Americans or placed in the trust fund. Coming in at a number three is nuclear weapons at almost $5.5 trillion. Welfare is a close fourth followed by interest on the national debt. I realize that the type on this is rather hard to read but the chart is in your packet and may also be found on page 5 of the book. What this chart demonstrates, among other things, is that nuclear weapons spending over this 56-year period exceeded the combined total federal spending for education; training, employment, and social services; agriculture; natural resources and the environment; general science, space, and technology; community and regional development (including disaster relief); law enforcement; and energy production and regulation. On average, the United States has spent $98 billion a year on nuclear weapons.

Source: http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/schwartz.htm

Nukes are bad and only someone with no concern for his country men would desire them

Having them will cripple a small nation faster than an invading army would. Plus it would be something the people could not fight back against. Nukes are leeches that will suck a country dry and be paid for by the citizen least able to afford it.

[mahdisoldier19]

If that they state is true, why not allow inspections? :skeleton:

They actually do Allow Inspections, in fact they allow any typical human being to come and visit their stations.

But what do you view as inspections?

[yigiter187]

They actually do Allow Inspections, in fact they allow any typical human being to come and visit their stations.

But what do you view as inspections?

us is not the owner of this world...us hasnt got a right such as inspecting ıran or other muslim countries..ıran is totally the right one

[Keltoi]

us is not the owner of this world...us hasnt got a right such as inspecting ıran or other muslim countries..ıran is totally the right one

The U.S. wouldn't be inspecting anyone, it is the IAEA who does the inspecting, and it is a U.N. organization.

[yigiter187]

The U.S. wouldn't be inspecting anyone, it is the IAEA who does the inspecting, and it is a U.N. organization.

un =us no difference ı think un does what us wants

[Keltoi]

un =us no difference ı think un does what us wants

If that was the case they would be in Iraq right now helping the government get on its feet. You don't seem to understand that U.N. actions are based primarily on the Security Council, which never agree on anything and nothing gets done.

[Cognescenti]

The LIE that you question is the LIE that virtually every person on the planet has heard the USA Government admit to on more than once occasion. Remember all the missing WMD that they KNEW were in Iraq? Notice how the war in Iraq went from protecting the USA from the mean ole', WMD welding Iraqis to the "war on terror". Did you conveniently forget about all the pretty words Bush uses to "justify" his war?


Aside from the 200,000 Iraqis slaughtered during the Gulf War, an additional 1.5 million civilians have died since 1991 as a result of the sanctions, according to UNICEF reports and the Red Cross, many from what normally would be treatable and curable illnesses. Of these victims, 600,000 are children under 5 years of age. Maternal mortality rates have more than doubled, and 70 percent of Iraqi women suffer from anemia.

That's what I supposed you were talking about. You are co-mingling argumetns in favor of the war with arguments to impose sanctions at least 10 years earlier. Look...one of the main arguments opposing the US/UK attack on Hussein's regime was that "sanctions were working" They were, sort of, but economic sanctions have....guess what...economic consequences. Hussein's regime and their troublemaking (gassing Kurds, slaughtering Shia, invading Kuwait, starting a war with Iran where perhaps 2 million people died) were not going to give up and move to Switzerland just because some guys in powdered wigs showed up and politely asked.

The figures you cite, though likely augmented (epidemiological studies in Iraq are difficult) largely apply to the time before the "oil-for-food" program. Look how that turned out. Hussein had literally billions of dollars in US currency lying about the country in secret hideouts. He had a dozen palaces with gold plated bathroom fixtures. Uday had a new car every week, the finest imported brandys and champaigne and hand-crafted custom shotguns. They were buying surface to surface missiles right up to the end. They were paying off all sorts of people to keep the shell game going. Hussein was building whole cities in the desert for his Tikriti loyalists. They were smuggling very large quantities of oil.

The problem wasn't so much the sanctions. You could say it was more about bad shopping discipline on the part of Hussein. One of Uday's Bentleys or Mercedes could have funded iron pills for a million women for a year. In fact, it was worse than that. The suffering of the Iraqi people (partly at the discretion of the regime) was used as a political wedge to break the sanctions and to unite people behind Hussein himself. If that isn't cynnical....no it's way past cynnical and into the evil realm.

Given the tons of depleted uranium used during the Allied attacks, cancer rates have skyrocketed: the childhood leukemia rate is now the highest in the world. Most of the leukemia increase is in southern Iraq where the bombing was heaviest.

"Skyrocketed"? Oh please. You do realize that depleted Uranium is less radioactive than unprocessed metallic Uranium? How could anyone possibly claim an accurate rate of leukemia prevalence in Southern Iraq under these conditions? That has agenda written all over it. Convince me if can. Show me the scientific data...not website hyperbole. I'm listening.

The sanctions were imposed by the United Nations....were they not? Every memeber state of the Secuirty Council voted "Aye" including our great buddies the French, the Russians and the Chinese. It was tied to undeniable past evidence of Iraqi WMD's. Remember...they actually used the things on the Kurds. The fact that they had no usable WMD's at the start of GWII is immaterial to the decision to impose sanctions in 1990. Generally, btw, the use of the word "lie" is restricted to the knowing telling of falsehood..unless of course, one has a political ax to grind. :)

You can try to justify Israel having nuclear power while they and the USA doesn't want any other country in the world to have them...but when they turn around and use them on their "friends" one day, remember this post. :)

I am not going to lose sleep over that.

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with Israelis, just as I have no problem at all with Americans. I do, however, have a major problem with their corrupt governments, which as I have said, are more of a threat to their own people than any outside forces are.

Hana

Ah....the old "I don't hate Americans..just their government" line.

Here is another good one...."some of my best friends are Americans"

[Hashim_507]

Its all about power and world domination.

[yigiter187]

If that was the case they would be in Iraq right now helping the government get on its feet. You don't seem to understand that U.N. actions are based primarily on the Security Council, which never agree on anything and nothing gets done.

ı havent seen a useful beneficial jobe done by security council...

[Keltoi]

ı havent seen a useful beneficial jobe done by security council...

There hasn't been in awhile, but that is a separate thread.

[*Hana*]

Ah....the old "I don't hate Americans..just their government" line.

Here is another good one...."some of my best friends are Americans"

Don't try to pretend like you even have 1/2 a clue what I do and do not like. BTW, I don't have any American friends, just as I don't have any Swedish friends, German friends, Iraqi friends, etc., etc., etc. By your logic, I'm suppose to hate every ethnicity because I don't have friends in that country. I hate the Iraqi government too....does that mean I also hate Iraqis? I hate my own pathethic, prime minister, should I hate all canadians too?

As for the response to my old post....believe whatever you want...you will anyway. The truth is there but if you choose to keep your blinders on go for it, it doesn't effect me one way or another. I could continue with the back and forth where you dismiss my facts without providing any of your own....and why? Because you can't. all you have is lip service and the accusation of using biased websites. So, do and believe whatever you like. :) But, when the tables are turned, (and they will), I'm looking forward to your whining and your "I'm a victim" speech. :)

To use your style of writing: stopping this conversation is kinda like beating your head against wall....it feels so good when you stop. :D

Ta Ta

Hana

[barney]

2. If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?
3. Has US signed the IAEA or NPT treaty? Or it will?
4. Why do those who did not sign the NPT have the right to build a nuclear bomb?
5. Why are those who signed the NPT not allowed to go after civilian nuclear technology?
6. Why has US been depriving Iran of spare parts for passenger planes for 27 years? Are they used in NP?
7. What guarantees that Iran will be provided with nuclear fuel if it accepts producing it elsewhere?
8. Why do US+allies have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and threaten the security of the middle east?
9 Did Iran ever drop a nuclear bomb on any neighbour or any remote land as US did in Hiroshima?
10 Will US drop nuclear bombs on Iran if all means fail to stop it from building a nuclear reactor?
____________________________________
2. Your saying a weapon is good? Umm its the most terrible weapon in the world. Problem is once its been invented, try uninventing it.
3. NPT was decades back. The USSR and West had already built thousands of warheads, the idea was that numbers wouldnt grow higher so that stability was improved. The Idea that stability improves by giving Mahadmood "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Ahmadinajahd some Nukes because it would be "Fair" is freaking NUTS.
4. Build away. Have the world come down on you hard. Losers for not signing.
5. Sure. Anyone whos got a leader not waving his fists around threatening to wipe out countries whilst simulaniously sitting on the third biggest pool of oil in the whole world, can seek peaceful nuclear power.
6. Oh Buy Russian already. Theyll sell their souls for a rouble. Better still, the fantastic Iranian Industrial miracle could build their own planes. Or do you still need those 45 year old MIG 21's.
7. Because we do that with other countries that arn't led by Religious nutcases. Revolt and put in someone whos not foaming at the mouth to destroy Infidels and it helps your chances. Amazingly.
8. We have stockpiles of Nukes because we kept a few back after the cold war, because Nukes exist and without them, someone else is going to nuke you. Old OBL would have fried western citys in a heartbeat if he diddnt factor in the massive nuclear retaliation. As for threatening the security of the middle east, By supporting a democratic Israel against a pack of dictators? Or by freeing the people of Iraq to make their own choices. Even if it is for 20% of them to butcher as many Iraqi kids as possible? Security comes about by realising where the blame lies. Swap your Bush burning effigys for Ahmadinerjahd effergies and see how long it takes before you "dissapear"
9) It hasnt built em. Let them build one and lets all find out. Invading Japan would have cost, its generally agreed, 3 million American and 14 million Japanese Lives and destroyed their country. Instead the war was finished without the continual mass firebombing of Dresden, Berlin and Coventry and saved those 20 million. Japan however was subdued by the US and is now the poorest country in the world. It's people live in cardboard huts and its only export is Clay. Nobody buys it. It has no industry and ranks as a tiny enslaved cripple of a power with no wealth or prospects, in a similar manner to Germany. The USA caused this.
10. No. If it carries on though , one night the factory will explode, and good riddance too.

[Cognescenti]

Don't try to pretend like you even have 1/2 a clue what I do and do not like. BTW, I don't have any American friends...

I am not surprised given your sentiments.

As for the response to my old post....believe whatever you want...you will anyway. The truth is there but if you choose to keep your blinders on go for it, it doesn't effect me one way or another. I could continue with the back and forth where you dismiss my facts without providing any of your own....and why? Because you can't. all you have is lip service and the accusation of using biased websites.

I didn't dismiss your facts, just the conclusions you claim flow from them....and I explained why. It's called debate. You, for example, made the unsubstantiable claim of a "skyrocketing" leukemia rate in Southern Iraq. I found that not credible and I asked for some evidence. I am a scientist..I can take it. If you supply credible proof then I will give credence to your depleted uranium claim. You seem to have none, therefore I remain skeptical.

So, do and believe whatever you like. :) But, when the tables are turned, (and they will), I'm looking forward to your whining and your "I'm a victim" speech. :)

Sorry, can't tell where you are going with that one..other than the possible theat about the tables turning. I hope you aren't planning anything yourself.

To use your style of writing: stopping this conversation is kinda like beating your head against wall....it feels so good when you stop. :D

Ta Ta

Hana

Very well. Please have a pleasant retreat.

[*Hana*]

I am not surprised given your sentiments.

heehee typical...pick out a couple of words and leave the rest in the hopes the true statement gets lost. And, you also neglected to mention what sentiments you are referring to. :)

I didn't dismiss your facts, just the conclusions you claim flow from them....and I explained why. It's called debate. You, for example, made the unsubstantiable claim of a "skyrocketing" leukemia rate in Southern Iraq. I found that not credible and I asked for some evidence. I am a scientist..I can take it. If you supply credible proof then I will give credence to your depleted uranium claim. You seem to have none, therefore I remain skeptical.

not at all my claim and never claimed it to be...go read something instead of babbling on with nothing except your own opinion. For a "scientist" you're not very good at this are you. :) loool "i seem to have none"? lool Take it up with the real scientists who made the claim. Give your proof to the opposite instead of paying lip service which is all you ever do. You never offer anything accept your opinion. And ummmm, on the net, I can be a scientist too, and I say, the facts finding the climbing leukemia rate in southern iraq is founded. :D My opinion is worth as much as yours. Now what? See how your idea of "debate" doesn't work. By the way...you might want to try reading again to have a better understanding of how and when those numbers were compiled. You were just too quick to get your "opinion" in there to fully read and comprehend statements.

Maybe this will help:

Just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000 pound bombs, cruise missiles, and anything else engineered to help our side in the war of us against them has Uranium in it. Lots of Uranium.

In the case of a cruise missile, as much as 800 pounds of the stuff. This article is about how much radioactive uranium our guys, representing us, the citizens of the United States, let fly in Iraq. Turns out they used about 4,000,000 pounds of the stuff, give or take, according to the Pentagon and the United Nations. That is a bunch.

Now, most people have no idea how much Four Million Pounds of anything is, much less of Uranium Oxide Dust (UOD), which this stuff turns into when it is shot or exploded. Suffice it to say it is about equal to 1,333 cars that weigh three thousand pounds apiece. That is a lot of cars; but, we can imagine what a parking lot with one thousand three hundred and thirty three cars is like. The point is: this was and is an industrial strength operation. It is still going on, too.

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

Now if this isn't enough for you...just let me know and I'll give you more. However, I can guess what you want to say, "These sources are no good...they're biased." And they would be biased because they don't say what you want them to say. :) NOW, maybe you can understand why I had no desire to continue talking with you and why I felt it best to stop banging my head against a wall. :) But, I couldn't resist the opportunity to show your "opinion" for what it truly is....worthless.

Sorry, can't tell where you are going with that one..other than the possible theat about the tables turning. I hope you aren't planning anything yourself.

Yeah ok, that was spoken like an educated "scientist". :-[ Wouldn't every logical thinking human being come up with that conclusion?? :X

Very well. Please have a pleasant retreat.

LOOOL frustrated or hopeful? Does it make you feel some how superior to say that? Are you suffering from an inferiority complex of sorts? You see, the grown up thing to say would have been to simply respond with a returned "ta ta" Glad I could help with the extra dose of self-esteem, but you shouldn't be so quick to flatter yourself. :-[ Keep those opinions coming and over time you might even be able to back them with some kind of proof from real scientists. :thumbs_up

With peace, and extra strength Advil,

Hana

[Cognescenti]

heehee typical...pick out a couple of words and leave the rest in the hopes the true statement gets lost. And, you also neglected to mention what sentiments you are referring to. :)

I will admit, that was a cheap shot. It was a joke. The sentiment I was referring to is your apparent belief that all evil starts at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And ummmm, on the net, I can be a scientist too, and I say, the facts finding the climbing leukemia rate in southern iraq is founded. :D My opinion is worth as much as yours. Now what? See how your idea of "debate" doesn't work. By the way...you might want to try reading again to have a better understanding of how and when those numbers were compiled. You were just too quick to get your "opinion" in there to fully read and comprehend statements.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. You made the claim that childhood luekemia had "skyrocketed' in Iraq after the evil Americans shot the place up with DU. Simply citing a few anecdotal reports is not scientific evidence. Nobody really knows what the leukemia rate in Iraq was before the war. Southern Iraq was the poor stepchild under Hussein because of the Shia insurrections. The health care there was pure ****. Nobody even really knows how many people live in Southern Iraq. How could you hope to cite a prevalence rate? There is the additional problem that exposure to metallic uranium has not been previously associated with leukemia (to my knowledge). Here is what the the WHO has to say on the issue:

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium

* In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
* In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
* Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
* No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
* No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
* Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

I have actually read the study on Uranium miners. Navajo uranium miners in underground (hard rock) Uranium mines in the 1950's experienced an increased risk of lung cancer (many years later 15-30 yrs). Smokers were particualry susceptible, experiencing a doubling of risk. The problem here is they were also inhaling not insignificant quantities of radioactive radon gas (a byproduct of uranium decay which become concentrated in a mine but quickly disperses in the atmosphere above ground) which has been conclusively proven to be a health risk.

There is evidence linking leukemia directly to radon exposure, as well (Czech study). Again, this applies to uranium miners who spend their work lives underground in much higher radon levels. The miners had a 75% increased risk of Leukemias of all types over their work lives.

I also read the Basra Hospital report. It is best to call it a report because it is very lacking from a scientific standpoint. This dates from GWI...BTW, not from the current war in Iraq. It appears to show an increase in cancer and leukemias but it starts immediately after the war. This is very suspicious because that is not how the disease usually presents. It may be lousy data, it may be deferred care (very likely), it may be willfully misreported or fraudulent. Even if it is true, it does not automatically indict DU as there are many confounding events...like Hussein setting most of the oil wells in Kuwait on fire and releasing God only knows howm many tons of Benzene and other nasty stuff into the air. Basra was the site of nasty fighting in the Iran Iraq war when Hussein sprayed tons of nerve agent and hundreds of tons of mustard gas in the area. Do you think this is good for you? If you ask me, if there is a larger cancer risk in Southern Iraq I would look to what happened 20 years ago Look at Marie Curie. She worked with Radium all her adult life..took essentially no precautions and died of leukemia at 66.

Just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000 pound bombs, cruise missiles, and anything else engineered to help our side in the war of us against them has Uranium in it. Lots of Uranium.

In the case of a cruise missile, as much as 800 pounds of the stuff. This article is about how much radioactive uranium our guys, representing us, the citizens of the United States, let fly in Iraq. Turns out they used about 4,000,000 pounds of the stuff, give or take, according to the Pentagon and the United Nations. That is a bunch.

That is pure bull. DU is used specifically to aid in the penetration of heavily armored targets (like tanks). It doesn't offer advantages as a projectile for other purposes. It is therefore used in rounds designed to penetrate tank armor....like amor-piercing main gun rounds for the M1 tanks, and the Bradley. The USAF uses it on the A-10 gun. The opposition in Iraq doesn't have any tanks any more. The threat now is a guy with an AK-47. They aren't going to waste a armor piercing tank round of a guy in sandals. Do you realize the warhead on a DU-equiped antitank round doesnt have explosive in it? It has a specific purpose.

It is absolutely false that it is used in "...just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000 pound bombs, cruise missiles". Absolute hysterical paranoia. The author is either clueless or he is purposely manipulating people. Has he never heard of lead?

I especially liked this reference you gave:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html

Did you actually read it or just Googled "uranium"?

The story is about the US sequestering two tons of uranium and other radioactive items left over from the fledgeling Iranian nuke program!!!!

It isn't even about DU.

LOOOL frustrated or hopeful? Does it make you feel some how superior to say that? Are you suffering from an inferiority complex of sorts? You see, the grown up thing to say would have been to simply respond with a returned "ta ta" Glad I could help with the extra dose of self-esteem, but you shouldn't be so quick to flatter yourself. :-[ Keep those opinions coming and over time you might even be able to back them with some kind of proof from real scientists. :thumbs_up

With peace, and extra strength Advil,

Hana

You needn't have responded to my post either. :) The grown up thing to do would be to admit that you have been influenced by anti-US propaganda which has no basis in the evidence. I won't hold my breath

ta ta

[Muezzin]

Guys, at the rate things are going, this thing is going to be locked pretty soon.

Unless everyone saves the thread. Be a hero. Post on topic.

[Cognescenti]

Yes..sorry. We were getting far afield. The anti-Americansim just gets to me after a bit. :X

[*Hana*]

Yes, I did read the article and I put it there for a reason. You obviously missed the point.

You're so tuned in to anti-Americanism, that's all you see. Yes, I do blame the American and British governments for what is happening in Iraq...why? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT INVADED!!! If it had been Canada, or Russia or Poland or China or whoever, I would be blaming them...they didn't do it, the USA did. And they did it based on lies. They illegally invaded an innocent country by claiming they had WMD's, (just as the US has), when they KNEW there was none there and said so on more than one occasion PRIOR to the illegal invasion.

Listen, you want to support the American troops in Iraq...go for it, but it doesn't mean you have to accept what the American government did. American soldiers are dying every day because of a lie. Do you want to justify that too? They joined the military to protect and serve their country. Now they're dying in a country that was NEVER a threat to the USA and according to Rice, their military was so destroyed they were never able to re-build and they weren't even a threat to their own neighbours.

What the American and British governments did was absolutely, positively wrong, They have no right to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraqi people are still dying because of their invasion and they are certainly not free. American soldiers are dying for nothing and the only ones responsible for that is Bush and Blair.

As far as the increase in cancer in Iraq, particularly southern Iraq, I'm not going to argue with you. I've seen, first hand, how it happens and the effects it has on children, particularly from 2 years and under. That country is littered with DU and the invading forces are major contributors to that.

You did exactly as I said you would do. Dismiss every single source as insignificant because it doesn't agree with you. These are reports taken from reliable sources, accept them or reject them, it doesn't make any difference. But, they are far more valid than simply your opinion regardless of what you read. Will you find other reports with a differing opinion? Sure you will, you just couldn't be bothered to look. However, as I've said, I've seen what this stuff does and I believe with 100% certainty the cancer rate has skyrocketed, as the articles have stated, and I also believe you will see that number increase dramatically over the next 10-15 years.

BTW, not once did I say anything about evil being at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Those are your words, not mine.

The bottom line is, the USA has nuclear bombs, we all assume Israel has nuclear bombs....and this is all okie dokie. However, Pakistan having a nuclear bomb, and India, or the possibility Iran could be making them, etc., this is NOT ok?? Who determines that? The USA is NOT the world police regardless of their own self importance.

Ta ta

Hana

[Muezzin]

By all means critique the wider effects of the Iraq war in a thread of its own.

This thread is more focused on nuclear proliferation.

[Woodrow]

Right or wrong we need to keep in mind that the US and the UK are not the only Nations with Troops in Iraq. There have been up to 21 Nations Supporting the US with military troops for use in Iraq. There are also non-Military support for a total of 34 countries currently have People in Iraq.

Iraq Coalition Troops
Non-US Forces in Iraq - February 2007

The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

However, in the August 23, 2006 Iraq Weekly Status Report (Slide 27) the State Department listed 27 foreign countries as contributing troops to the Coalition in Iraq. The additional four countries were Japan, Portugal, Singapore and the Ukraine.

In addition, that same Weekly Status Report listed 34 countries (including the US) as maintaining personnel in Iraq (as part of the Coalition, UNAMI, or NATO). The State Department reported that Fiji was contributing troops though UNAMI and that Hungary, Iceland, Slovenia, and Turkey were assisting with the NATO training mission. However, it is unclear whether Hungary actually maintained any forces in Iraq as part of NATO or UNAMI since its government announced the complete withdrawal of troops in December 2004.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm


These Troops in Iraq are a very strong incentive for those Nations to not want Israel or anybody else to use nukes against Iran. Any nuclear strike against Iran would endanger those troops that are in Iraq. But, for the same reason those same 34 nations are at risk if Iran has nukes as that would almost guarantee a first strike by Israel, even without US support or approval.

Israel can feel fairly safe that it is not a viable nuclear target by any nation as it is aware that any Nuclear attack against them would do equal or more damage to the surrounding nations.

[vpb]

US is the only country that shouldn't be left with nuclear weapons, bc they are the only ones that used the atomic bomb, and that was used even twice.

[Keltoi]

The firebombing of Dresden did much more damage and killed an awful lot of people. The invasion of Japan would have killed far more. The decision to use the atomic bomb in Japan isn't as black and white as it seems.

[vpb]

there is NO EXCUSE . full stop :p

[Keltoi]

there is NO EXCUSE . full stop :p

It isn't about "excuses", it is about the reality of the situation. Any invasion of Japan would have been devastating for both parties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been destroyed with the atomic bomb, but an invasion would have reduced the whole of the island to rubble. With a death toll far beyond that caused by the atomic bombs.

[vpb]

how many people are being born with mental/physical defects as a result of that atomic bomb?? nothing can be worse than atomic bomb, not even a massacre . the atomic bombs destroys future generations also. so there is no excuse to use it not matter what.

[Keltoi]

how many people are being born with mental/physical defects as a result of that atomic bomb?? nothing can be worse than atomic bomb, not even a massacre . the atomic bombs destroys future generations also. so there is no excuse to use it not matter what.

According to most studies there has been no conclusive evidence of genetic mutations in the children of atomic bomb survivors. Those exposed to the atomic fallout, primarily from the hypocenter, have had increased rates of cancer, some malignant some not, and other diseases. All of this has to do with survivors, people who actually lived through the blast. Those born afterwards show no signs of any significant exposure, except those in the womb during the event in question. The fact of the matter is that those who had direct exposure to radiation did have some health issues, some serious and some not. However, there is no evidence that the new generations in Japan have been effected in any way.

http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm

[Trumble]

US is the only country that shouldn't be left with nuclear weapons, bc they are the only ones that used the atomic bomb, and that was used even twice.

It was used twice because the Japanese didn't surrender after the first. They did after the second.

Keltoi is right. The estimate casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan were between one and two million, far larger than the casualties from the atomic bombs (which, combined, were less than the firebombing of Tokyo). You make a fair point about future generations, but that wasn't well understood at the time, and even then it's arguable the effect was 'worse'. The decision to use atomic weapons was actually taken to save lives, both American and Japanese. Whether it was 'right' is debatable, but such decisions are much easier in hindsight.

There is obviously one one sensible number of nations 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons - none. When it was just the Cold War power blocks that had them there was always a chance that when the Cold War ended we could have got rid of them. With each new country, though, the opportunity gets more and more remote.

[Woodrow]

Right now the US and Russia are the 2 best reasons why no Nation should have Nukes. Once you build them, you can not unbuild them The core components are curently indestructable and will present a threat until the core decays to non fissionable stage. There is a chance that many in the US and Russia Stock pile have reached that point, but nobody really knows and the core will be a radiation hazard for at least a few thousand years.

That is the trouble with those puppies, you can't house break them, they cost a fortune each year to feed and the darn things refuse to die.

I honestly believe that if both the US and Russia knew how to safely dispose of them, they would be disposed of, at least most of them. The stuff you saw disposed of a few years age was the delivery systems not the weapons. So right now both the US and Russia have a huge quantity of them that can not even be used against another nation. They are just accidents waiting to happen.

[Cognescenti]

Right now the US and Russia are the 2 best reasons why no Nation should have Nukes. Once you build them, you can not unbuild them The core components are curently indestructable and will present a threat until the core decays to non fissionable stage. There is a chance that many in the US and Russia Stock pile have reached that point, but nobody really knows and the core will be a radiation hazard for at least a few thousand years.

That is the trouble with those puppies, you can't house break them, they cost a fortune each year to feed and the darn things refuse to die.

I honestly believe that if both the US and Russia knew how to safely dispose of them, they would be disposed of, at least most of them. The stuff you saw disposed of a few years age was the delivery systems not the weapons. So right now both the US and Russia have a huge quantity of them that can not even be used against another nation. They are just accidents waiting to happen.

I agree. The US and Russia have MUCH more plutonium and Weapons Grade Uranium than they need for any conceivable current use in nuclear weapons at this time. That is one reason that the Iranian claim of enriching uranium for peaceful purposes is completely laughable. "Reactor grade" uranium can be produced from HEU by simply remixing it with the stuff they spent so much money and time separating it from in the first place (U-238). The Iranians can buy or even be given reactor fuel for a fraction of the cost of producing it de novo.

The plutonium is harder to get rid of....and much more dangerous to people...even when just sitting around.

What we are seeing now is the price of the Cold War. Another massive land war in Europe was avoided...but it wasn't free.

[Woodrow]

I agree. The US and Russia have MUCH more plutonium and Weapons Grade Uranium than they need for any conceivable current use in nuclear weapons at this time. That is one reason that the Iranian claim of enriching uranium for peaceful purposes is completely laughable. "Reactor grade" uranium can be produced from HEU by simply remixing it with the stuff they spent so much money and time separating it from in the first place (U-238). The Iranians can buy or even be given reactor fuel for a fraction of the cost of producing it de novo.

The plutonium is harder to get rid of....and much more dangerous to people...even when just sitting around.

What we are seeing now is the price of the Cold War. Another massive land war in Europe was avoided...but it wasn't free.

I am flabbergasted, that is the most brilliant suggestion I have heard about the stuff.

It could be a blessing to all of us. We would be able to get rid of our huge surplus of nuclear junk that is eating up tax dallars, eliminate the need for them to make any enrichment plants and have their power plants on line as fast as they can be built.

It would be highly profitable to the US to just give it to them. It would reduce the risk of them building any hidden enrichment plants and would provide them with all the reactor fuel they could possibly use for a long time.Tthe best part it would eliminate a huge environmental hazard we know pay an arm and leg each year to keep from killing all of us.

[Cognescenti]

I am flabbergasted, that is the most brilliant suggestion I have heard about the stuff.

It could be a blessing to all of us. We would be able to get rid of our huge surplus of nuclear junk that is eating up tax dallars, eliminate the need for them to make any enrichment plants and have their power plants on line as fast as they can be built.

It would be highly profitable to the US to just give it to them. It would reduce the risk of them building any hidden enrichment plants and would provide them with all the reactor fuel they could possibly use for a long time.Tthe best part it would eliminate a huge environmental hazard we know pay an arm and leg each year to keep from killing all of us.

Perhaps not all that brilliant. The problem is, according to their own claims, the Iranians already have a Uranium enrichment plant with 1000 modern centrifuges. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but they most likely have some capability and they may even have the production capability spread out geographically to reduce the chance of elimination with one strike and to conceal it from the West and you know who. So unless we can convincingly prove that all their capability is dismantled, we might actually be priming their pump with moderately enriched Uranium and shorten the time they need to produce HEU. :-[

On the other hand, the PR value would be undeniable. Imagine if the US Ambassador to the UN stood and addressed the Iranian delegation and said. "OK, you guys want peaceful nuclear power? You don't need enrichement, we will give you the fuel." :D

Still, I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw a case of pistachios.