billvon 3,107 #1 November 23, 2004 So there's been a lot of arguing about invading Iran to stop their nuclear program. If Iraq is any indication, that's a quarter trillion dollar attempt at a solution that might not work any better than the Iraq solution did. So here's my solution: The Iranians are saying that they want enriched uranium for nuclear power plants. Offer to _give_ them all the CANDU* reactors they want. In exchange, they have to allow IAEA inspectors to basically live in their nuclear research facilities. They will respond one of two ways: OK, give us the reactors. If they say this we ship them reactors and monitor every aspect of their nuclear program. This gives us the best possible chance of determining what they're doing and stopping it before they get weapons-grade materials. No way. If they say this we are no worse off now, and are actually a little better off in terms of world opinion. Iran will have made it clear that they are on a path to develop nuclear weapons, and that will likely shake some support loose for stopping their programs some other way (like sanctions.) Cost is either zero (if they refuse) or around $2 billion a reactor. Even if they need 5, we're still looking at saving a factor of 25 over the cost of a war (not to mention the cost in lives.) * = CANDU reactors are heavy-water reactors that use natural uranium as fuel; no enrichment required. They won't need to develop any enrichment programs to fuel them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 November 23, 2004 I'd thought this, bill, but did not know of CANDU reactors. Heck, I'll climb aboard on this option. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #3 November 23, 2004 Nice one Bill. This is the sort of "out of the box" thinking I was talking about._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #4 November 23, 2004 Inspired. I'd support such an approach. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #5 November 23, 2004 QuoteNo way. If they say this we are no worse off now, and are actually a little better off in terms of world opinion. Iran will have made it clear that they are on a path to develop nuclear weapons, Or just that they’re fed up of people trying to tell a Sovereign Nation what they can and can’t do. What if the EU told the US they were no longer trusted to carry out nuclear research and that if they wanted nuclear power then the EU would give them any reactors they required but that they weren’t allowed to develop their own? Further stipulation being that French inspectors must visit the plants daily. Georgy probably wouldn’t be too impressed with the idea... Speakers Corner would start a riot. I’m not saying they don’t want Nukes… just that there are other plausible explanations for a “No way” answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #6 November 23, 2004 "Further stipulation being that French inspectors must visit the plants daily." The plants would have to built by Condu, the big French construction consortium. I've dealt with them in the past. We did a lot of work with Cheney when he was at Halliburton. We had Condu before, and we hope to have Condu again.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #7 November 23, 2004 Interesting idea Bill, but I have some concerns. 1 is Iran's history of lying to us as the did during the Clinton admin. I could see them accepting the reactor offer, hosing us for millions, and then continuing right along on their current path. 2. It's kind of like negotiation with terrorists...where does it end and who will be next in line to try and coerce us into buying them reactors?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #8 November 23, 2004 It is a very good idea, I didn´t know about those reactors... Do they have any drawback? I see a problem, and the problem is that no matter what they say they most likely want nuclear weapons. After what we have all seen in Irak, no muslim country in his right mind will not be pursuing nuclear capabilities. Irak, had no WMD and he got attacked and invaded for no clear reason. NK, have WMD and is getting diplomatic second chances every other day beyond reason. If Irak had had WMD I very much doubt the U.S would have started that war because it would have been a political suicide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #9 November 23, 2004 QuoteIt is a very good idea, I didn´t know about those reactors... Do they have any drawback? They're Canadian (CANada Deuterium Uranium). So if it doesn't work we can Blame Canada... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #10 November 23, 2004 QuoteI'd thought this, bill, but did not know of CANDU reactors. . Of course you hadn't. Not Invented Here Syndrome.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 November 23, 2004 Not to punch a hole in your brilliance. But that was the plan that Kerry proposed for dealing with Iran. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1170528#1170528 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #12 November 23, 2004 Fine idea...what do we do if they take the reactors and tell us to pound sand up our asses and continue to try and build nukes? They are not known for being the most trustworthy people... I mean they continued to refine the gases needed to produce nuke grade materials right up to the dead line. So, what do you do if they take us for a ride, and then tell us to fuck off and do as they please? Sanctions? Sanctions for 12 years? The FTD "Please stop building nukes" bouquet?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #13 November 23, 2004 How would you impose sanctions without the UN?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #14 November 23, 2004 QuoteFine idea...what do we do if they take the reactors and tell us to pound sand up our asses and continue to try and build nukes? They are not known for being the most trustworthy people... I mean they continued to refine the gases needed to produce nuke grade materials right up to the dead line. So, what do you do if they take us for a ride, and then tell us to fuck off and do as they please? Sanctions? Sanctions for 12 years? The FTD "Please stop building nukes" bouquet? Well, what is your solution? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #15 November 23, 2004 QuoteHow would you impose sanctions without the UN? Do you expect the UN to enforce its sanctions? Cause it does not. Oil for food ring any bells? France selling weapons to Iraq? The UN is not really worth much."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #16 November 23, 2004 QuoteWell, what is your solution? Bills thread, not mine, I asked him a question since he left out a very large, and very probable situation."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #17 November 23, 2004 Fuck it, just invade them then, and anyone else that doesn't toe the line.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #18 November 23, 2004 QuoteFuck it, just invade them then, and anyone else that doesn't toe the line. Why are you getting pissy? I asked a question that you refused to answer. What good is an organization that imparts rules, that they don't enforce, or even follow themselves? It's like haveing a cop yell "Stop, or I'll yell stop again!""No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #19 November 23, 2004 "Why are you getting pissy? " I'm getting pissy because the UN is worth more than a wee scandal or two, that, to my knowledge has not been finalised yet. I'm getting pissy because without the UN the world would be a far worse place, and some people here just can't see that. Without the UN there is no means of getting multilateral action such as sanctions to work, so escalation to conflict in scenarios like this is even more likely. I'm getting pissy because people are so hung up on the Oil for Food issue that they just can't see that. "I asked a question that you refused to answer." No, first you asked Bill a question, then I asked one of you. Quid quo pro, Ron, you have not answered my question regarding sanctions, and nyaah, nyaah, I asked it of you first.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 November 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'd thought this, bill, but did not know of CANDU reactors. . Of course you hadn't. Not Invented Here Syndrome. That has nothing to do with it. It's more of a "fairly ignorant of nuclear power technology" issue. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #21 November 23, 2004 Quote"Why are you getting pissy? " I'm getting pissy because the UN is worth more than a wee scandal or two, that, to my knowledge has not been finalised yet. I'm getting pissy because without the UN the world would be a far worse place, and some people here just can't see that. Without the UN there is no means of getting multilateral action such as sanctions to work, so escalation to conflict in scenarios like this is even more likely. I'm getting pissy because people are so hung up on the Oil for Food issue that they just can't see that. "I asked a question that you refused to answer." No, first you asked Bill a question, then I asked one of you. Quid quo pro, Ron, you have not answered my question regarding sanctions, and nyaah, nyaah, I asked it of you first. A scandle or 2????? What about 18 trillion resolutions in Iraq that were never enforced over a 12 year time period???? Look, the UN's word on enforcement isn't that good!!!! I like the idea in principal Bill, but I don't think it will work! They can have the CANDU reactors and still be researching other means on the side. Shit.... that is what NK was doing behind our back!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #22 November 23, 2004 QuoteI'm getting pissy because the UN is worth more than a wee scandal or two, that, to my knowledge has not been finalised yet. Lets not forget having some of the worst civil rights violators on the commision to protect civil rights. The UN is a load of crap. A paper tiger that makes rules and then never enforces them. It like almost all political organizations is filled with criminals. QuoteI'm getting pissy because without the UN the world would be a far worse place, and some people here just can't see that. Blind support of them amazes me. QuoteWithout the UN there is no means of getting multilateral action such as sanctions to work, so escalation to conflict in scenarios like this is even more likely. They don't work now WITH them. You have to DO something, not just sit around and make rules while you line your pockets with money from coutries you are supposed to be holding sanctions against. QuoteNo, first you asked Bill a question, then I asked one of you. Quid quo pro, Ron, you have not answered my question regarding sanctions, and nyaah, nyaah, I asked it of you first If you read my first post you will see the first line: "Fine idea...what do we do if they take the reactors and tell us to pound sand up our asses and continue to try and build nukes?" Id like to point out the first two words of the first sentance of my first post "Fine Idea" You could read that as "Not a bad idea, I kinda find it interesting and might support it". But my question that I asked needs to be answered before I am willing to support giving nuclear material and equipment valued at around 10 Billion dollars to a country that has a history of not giving a shit what the rest of the world wants it to do. And one that has supported terrorism. Call me funny, but I don't like the idea of giving 10 Billion dollars and nuclear material to an anti-US country with out some plan of what we are going to do if they tell us to fuck off, and try to build nukes anyway....All the time laughing about the 10 Billion of stuff we gave them. BTW remember that NK was not going to build nukes if we gave them stuff....Yeah, that worked well."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #23 November 23, 2004 >I could see them accepting the reactor offer, hosing us for millions, >and then continuing right along on their current path. You're right, they might do that. But with a large number of inspectors in-country for at least as long as it takes to build the reactors (which is a fairly long time, years at least) we will at least know more about their programs than we do now - and it will give us a few years of knowing they're not developing weapons. None of these solutions are permanent. Eventually, most countries will have nuclear weapons. At best we can delay that day. >2. It's kind of like negotiation with terrorists...where does it end and who >will be next in line to try and coerce us into buying them reactors? We can always say no. And even if 10 countries want reactors, and we give them all away for free, then a) there is less enriched uranium floating around and b) it's still 1/10 the price of a war. If a country that supports terrorism is going to have a reactor, a CANDU is the one you want them to have - it's pretty useless (without an enrichment program) for developing weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #24 November 23, 2004 QUESTION Doesn't Iran have a SHIT LOAD of OIL????? Why does it need nuclear power? I don't think it is because they want to protect the environment. They could use their own oil for energy!!!! THere's a bright idea!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #25 November 23, 2004 Or they could sell it and further develop their economy. Or they could try and protect their future economy - their oil isn't going to last for ever. Who knows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)