| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iran | |
| Iran Says U.S. Should Help It Build Nuclear Plants | |
| 2003-06-02 | |
| EFL Iran said Monday the United States could help it build nuclear reactors as a way of ensuring that Tehran kept its word not to develop atomic weapons. "If the Americans are really worried about our nuclear ambitions they could take part in constructing our nuclear power plants," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "Look at what a sucess this was for North Korea!" U.S. officials have already dismissed the idea, floated last week by Russia. Sunday, the U.S. and Russian presidents said they had narrowed their differences over Iran at a meeting in St Petersburg. But Moscow has yet to heed Washington's pleas that it stop building Iran's first nuclear reactor, at Bushehr. Unlike North Korea, Iran denies seeking nuclear arms. But U.S. officials question why else the oil- and gas-rich Islamic republic would be investing in power-generating reactors.
He said Tehran welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin's call Sunday for tighter controls on atomic weapons: "We totally agree with Putin's remarks regarding weapons of mass destruction. Iran was the first country that suggested the whole region must be void of such weapons," Asefi said. "Russia has acknowledged our nuclear activities are peaceful." "And if you can't trust Russia, who can you trust?" Iran's suggestion of U.S. cooperation in its civil nuclear program bears some comparison with a 1994 deal under which the United States agreed to give North Korea reactors unsuitable for developing weapons material in return for Pyongyang abandoning efforts to build an atomic bomb. North Korea has, however, now admitted it has built nuclear weapons, U.S. officials say. That worked well, didn't it? | |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #7 When I was in college about 25 years ago, my best friend -- not Douglas De Bono -- seriously advocated bombing Iran back to dust. I thought he was a bit crazy. Now I'm not so sure he was wrong. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-06-02 21:03:15 |
| #6 Let's just bomb these sites back to the consistency of the surrounding rocks. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-06-02 16:17:52 |
| #5 re the energy economics - not so simple first of all yes the more oil you export, the more cash you can invest, but that offset by the substantial capital costs of the nuclear plant itself. Makes more sense not to build the nuke until youre relatively close to oil running out. And note well - oil is relatively easy to ship - natural gas, a by product is VERY difficult - if you dont have a market within pipeline distance, you have to go to the trouble of liquifying it, using specially designed ships, etc. So what you want to do is export the oil, and use the natural gas domestically - which is what Saudi, iraq, and many other oil exporters do. So theres no real good economic/energy reason for the nuclear program. I think the real reason is clear enough, though. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-02 15:36:31 |
| #4 The only reason I'm not all for this idea, is because the next Chickinshit administration to come down the line will pull out and give it to Iran, and the next thing you know, we don't have the Panama Canal any more. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-02 13:56:51 |
| #3 I'd take them up on it. Like LBJ used to say, "I'd rather be inside the tent pissing out then outside pissing in." It's not like they expect us to say yes. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-06-02 13:10:00 |
| #2 Flash is on to something: we'll help build the reactors but we need the 3ID -- and the 4ID and the 101st and 82nd and a Marine division -- to guard it against saboteurs. Can't be too careful. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-06-02 12:02:18 |
| #1 Why of course! We use the 3ID to build nuclear plants all the time. |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-06-02 09:18:56 |