Slashdot Mirror
Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant
pickens writes "VOA reports that Russian and Iranian engineers have begun loading fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant located in the southern city of Bushehr amid international fears that Iran will use the facility to make nuclear weapons, a charge both Tehran and the Kremlin vehemently deny. Officials say it will take about two to three months for the plant to start producing electricity once all of the fuel rods have been moved into the reactor. The production capacity of the plant will initially be 500 megawatts, but will eventually increase to 1,000 megawatts. Earlier this year, Washington criticized Russia for going ahead with the planned opening of the plant amid global disagreement and concern over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Moscow did, however, back a fourth round of sanctions against Tehran, which called for Iran to stop uranium enrichment."
What has Iran ever done to us
M.A.D. for a safer world! Today!
There are not international concerns over this plant. It requires uranium enriched by 3% (well below the 90% required for weapons grade material) and is operated by the Russians, who are both providing and disposing of the fuel. There are no proliferation concerns over this.
The concerns are over the other reactor, officially designated for medical research, which requires uranium enriched to 20%, which some see as the first step towards a breeder reactor for providing fuel for nuclear weapons.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm not sure if I should be happy that a more sensible energy source is being used, or if I should give into the fearmongering... so... I'll break out into song!
And Iran...
Iran's so far away.
I plus ran.
They claim they have no gays...
I don't know what to say.
That's 6849 barrels of oil per day they are going to save (the rough amount required to produce 500MW per day). At $74 a barrel that's about half a million dollars per day. Every day. Oil that they can now export to China and Russia that otherwise would have been burned up in domestic consumption. It doesn't take long before a plant like this pays for itself.
But oh, mention Iran and nuclear in the same paragraph and all the paranoid uninformed imperialist types appear, yelling "nuclear weapons!". Despite nuclear energy (or any other form of alternative energy) being an extremely sane choice for an oil exporting nation.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I mean, we could always trust the Russians to work in our best interests. Also, they were never sneaky about anything. Always truthful and honest, them Russians.
And Iran only threatened to wipe The West off the map, starting with Israel, with any means at their disposal. And that they could make a nuclear bomb if they wanted to, because it was a right granted to them from Allah.
Not to mention that they're playing the North Korean game of "let's talk" / "we're not talking to you anymore" / "let's talk" / "we're not talking to you anymore" with the UN. Remember what North Korea has now after a few years of that? Ah, yes, The Bomb.
And all this in the hands of a fanatic regime, intent on spreading Islam through force, feared and hated even by most other Islamic nations, all the while being one of the most horrible human-rights violators of our time.
But there's nothing to fear. They're not after the bomb. They say they are, but there's nothing to worry about. It's just a nuclear power plant.
REMAIN CALM!
"Programming is life, the rest is mere details"
If Israel struck the plant and killed a bunch of Russian engineers, that would be bad. If the strike put a radioactive plum in the air that drifted over part of China or India, that would be worse.
Not to mention the fact that if the Russians really got cheesed off they could just sell Iran warheads.
Any country with enough money and enough time is going to be able to acquire nuclear weapons. We might have to face the fact that there may not always be a military solution.
Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons, they don't feel the need to squander their collective treasure maintaining 12 aircraft carrier groups and they seem to get along just fine. Let some other country pick up some of the tab for being the world's policeman. We need that money here.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It's not a nuclear plant. It's just a bunch of camels running on treadmills.
But there aren't that many camels in Iran, despite the cliché that people have in mind.
I always shake my head and ruefully smile when I see these fear-mongering stories about hyped-up fears of “An Iranian Nuke in our Future!” and similar drivel. The IAEA inspects the program at ever single step of the way and of something is veering off course, everyone in the UN and the US will know. So far that hasn't happened, and my guess is that it won't.
For the record there's no simple, direct way to readily convert fuel-grade uranium into weapons-grade uranium, short of building a breeder reactor, and that's not exactly something you can do in your backyard or garage. Fuel-grade uranium doesn't go into a nuke, and you don't put weapons-grade uranium into your reactor, unless you want a really big “boom”.
As it stands, the only nation in the Mideast that illegally built a nuclear weapons program outside of international purview was Israel, and they got some of the initial materials to do so by smuggling the uranium from a refinement facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania in the late 1960's (c.f.: The Samson Option by Seymour Hersh). Yet you never hear two peeps about the “destabilizing influence in the Mideast” of that nuclear bandit state in the press, do you?
Also, let's not forget that the entire [crooked] line of thought is brought to you by the same perpetual prevaricators who threw up a lot of hot air about “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq!” and “Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan!” and then were trying to beat the drums for a war with Syria under the pretense of “Saddam moved all the weapons to Syria (and Iran!)” It's the same old, tired media meme rehashed once again for a petty excuse to get us involved in another war we don't need and can't afford.
For my part, I'd like to see every media editor that purports that very same lie to be strung up, just so the air can be cleared a bit.
This needs to be modded up.
The world needs an FAQ which should be required reading by everybody with a keyboard and the ability to vote.
Sheesh.
-FL
"Right now, we're just dealing with karma of past actions by our government.
If we kept our noses out of others business, the World would probably be a much different place and there would be less hatred towards us."
It's sad that so few Americans understand this.
While it could theoretically be done, this particular plant is not very useful for making bomb material.
In order for plutonium produced by reactors to be useful for weapons it needs to be extracted from a reactor fairly shortly after being produced, or otherwise it will be contaminated with heavier plutonium isotopes that generate a lot of heat and neutrons, making the weapon design dramatically more difficult (so difficult in fact that it is probably easier to start all over and make decent material ). For this reason plants used to make bomb material are usually smaller and built to be able to refuel quickly. Attempting to separate the plutonium isotopes after they have been mixed would likely be more difficult than "simply" enriching uranium, so that's not much of a worry either.
It is possible to build large reactors that can function both as power-plants and bomb producers, but this generally requires them to be designed so they can change their fuel bundles while operating ( The UK and former Soviet used to do this ). For a large pressurized water reactor, like this one, it is however not practical since it would require you to shut down and restart it to replace the fuel at frequent intervals, and for such a large reactor doing that takes ages, and it would be obvious to the outside world what is going on ( you don't just hide the fact that a few gigawatt of spill heat suddenly went away ).
Basically of all the types of power producing reactors in widespread use in the world today, a large pressurized water reactor is probably the least suitable for making plutonium. It is theoretically possible, but it is not even a fraction as big a concern as the uranium enrichment facilities Iran is also operating. Those facilities can be used to create highly enriched U-235, which is pretty much the material that is easiest to turn into a nuclear weapon. Using plutonium can have advantages for advanced weapon designs, but it is a lot easier to do with uranium.
Just don't have homer simpson work there!
First, I wish no one had the bomb, and the idea of a squirrelly state like Iran - or God forbid, North Korea - having one is enough to make me lose sleep. That said, under what moral or legal right do we get to say that they can't have one, other than that we don't like them? Is it our official policy that only our allies get nukes, and if so, do Russia and China have the same official policy with non-overlapping sets of allies?
Again, I don't want Iran to have the bomb. I'm just curious about what doctrine or treaty gives us a say in the matter of whether a sovereign country gets to use a technology that we already have.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Well, duh... That's because they're all in the power plant.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
Russia has decided to withdraw its advanced missile defense system for export. Officials said the Kremlin has ordered the state-owned arms agency Rosoboronexport to end marketing of the S-400 air and missile defense system. They said Rosoboronexport was told that the S-400 would be deployed only in Russia until further notice.
"Russia would consider exports only after meeting the requirements of its own armed forces," Rosoboronexport director Anatoly Isaikin said on Jan. 28. Over the last five years, Rosoboronexport has sought to sell the S-400 to a range of Middle East states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. So far, no export sales were reported.
"There are a lot of preliminary talks," Isaikin said.
The S-400 Triumph was designed to intercept airborne targets at up to 400 kilometers. Rosoboronexport has asserted that the system could destroy stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
In 2009, Rosoboronexport lobbied the Turkish government to purchase the S-400. Ankara, which appears to favor the U.S.-origin PAC-3, has conducted a $1 billion tender for the procurement of missile defense systems.
Officials said the Russian military would require at least two years to exploit the potential of the S-400. The first S-400 battalion entered combat duty in the Moscow region in 2007.
"There have been bugs in the system and this has prevented us from properly demonstrating the S-400 abroad," another official said.
(/end copy paste)
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
That's interesting. Do you have a link to a source for this? Not doubting you - interested in reading more. It's possible I've become a bit out of touch.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
they could seal the Strait of Hormuz which would majorly fuck up the US's oil supplies
No it wouldn't. It would screw up PRICES but the US actually gets fairly little oil from the middle east. Only Saudi Arabia is in the top 5 exporters of oil to the US and I suspect they might take issue with Iran screwing up the oil market. Furthermore the US has ample military means of responding to such an overt threat. The US doesn't really want to tangle with Iran but Iran REALLY doesn't want to tangle with the US military.
Therefore it is natural for the nation of Iraq to form close ties with Iran.
Except they fought a long a bloody war and hate each other. Otherwise you might have a point.
don't want the Iranians to have the materials. Its not like they would not want a spike in oil prices, let alone a major competitor to them "occupied" with other concerns decreasing availability of oil.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
There is a big difference between supporting a terrorist organization and supporting somebody who would eventually become a terrorist, unless you claim to be able to predict the future for a few decades.
In addition, Noam Chomsky is not exactly an unbiased source in a matters related to Israel
you'd be speaking proper English. blimey.
They actively support Hezbollah, which is defined as a terrorist organization by many countries including US. I don't know about you, but I think that would is a better place when terrorists do not have an access to nuclear weapons.
because "terrorism" is what the Kommandantur was calling the resistance.
So I guess this is the part of "reload" which comrade Putin skipped to mention to Obama when they talked about "reloading" relationship b/w US and Russia?
It amazes me how many U.S. citizens are ignorant of the violent, corrupt activities of the U.S. government. The violence is always for the profit of a few.
In the case of the U.S. government overthrowing the democratically elected Premier of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq, the CIA was allowed to act in secret: "The CIA, with help from British intelligence, planned, funded and implemented the operation." The purpose was to insure huge profits for British Petroleum (Yes, that BP), and U.S. oil companies.
Quote from the Wikipedia article: "Overnight, the CIA became a central part of the American foreign policy apparatus, and covert action came to be regarded as a cheap and effective way to shape the course of world events"--a coup engineered by the CIA called Operation PBSUCCESS toppling the duly elected Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, which had nationalised farm land owned by the United Fruit Company, followed the next year."
Military action so that U.S. investors can make more money has ever since been a central policy of the U.S. government. The families and friends of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had oil and weapons investments, so the U.S. military was used to get control of the oil in Iraq. That violence has made U.S. citizens much poorer, through taxes and inflation.
Call it what you want, but nowadays Hezbollah resistance is against democracy in Lebanon (see Rafic Hariri assassination). For me this and killing other civilians in other countries is terrorism.
Wrong! Stalin's plan was originally to invade Europe after Hitler destroyed all opposition in Europe. Hitler was the bad guy, Stalin was meant to be the liberator and liberate the whole of Europe - the way Stalin liberated Poland and tried to liberate Finland in 1939. That was the plan. That plan failed because while the Soviets helped train and establish the Wehrmacht in the 30s and actively aided Hitler in the opening stages of WW2, Stalin had no idea that Hitler would turn on him so quickly. The Soviets were massing huge numbers of troops, steel bombers, heavy tanks - the Soviets had the largest number of heavy tanks in 1939 (KW1 and 2) and the largest number of bombers (TB-3). They also had the world's greatest parachute force at about 1 million trained personnel, jumping from towers became a Soviet pastime in the 30s. The SU had virtually no civilian factories, they were preparing for an all out war. The typical view of defensive war seen in Russia was a war fought on the enemy's land - as depicted by Alexander Nevsky. All these were offensive weapons and tactics. When Hitler attacked these forces were incapable of using defensive tactics, they were not even blowing up bridges because Stalin had been building bridges in the 30s to help move his forces forward. Anyhow the Soviet plan was to let the West bleed itself out on Hitler, then the Soviet Union would liberate the European proletariat after the Western European masters and trade unions were gone, and establish a socialist system in every European country. This would have happened after WW2 had it not been for the fact that the USA got in the way and prevented further Soviet imperialism. The SU was more than capable of going West and taking out the French, British and remnant German forces.
Ideally for the US, the US could have let Stalin have all of Europe. The USA would have easily been able to trade with a socialist Europe and profit from it. The Americans instead risked war with the USSR and put their lives on the line for Germany, France, Britain and the rest of Western Europe. In Poland we wished the Americans would fight for us, but it would not be the case, still the American stance and containment allowed us to free ourselves when Gorbachev saw that he could no longer maintain Eastern Europe and would have to recreate the Soviet Economy on its own.
I must also oppose the moral relativism in this thread. The SU treated its own population and the populations of conquered nations very badly.
Tens of millions of civilians died including successful farmers (Kulaks), intelligentsia, ethnic minorities and anyone else who could oppose the Soviet Regime. One need only look at the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 now recognised as an act of genocide (Holodomor), the massacres of POWs in places like Katyn and deliberate withholding of support by the Soviet Union for the Warsaw Uprinsing against the Nazis which lead to 150-200,000 civilian deaths as Nazi reprisals.
Iran wants nuclear materials in their reactor. We can quickly deliver some really hot nuclear materials right down the chimney of their reactor. One good bomb will certainly correct their thinking in a flash!
If it was containment of Soviet expansion, why the hell did it start right after Mosaddeq nationalized Iranian Oil?
doesn't matter, the Iranians will eventually bomb the shit out of US soldiers over there in the middle east
I personally think that Iran has a disgusting record on human rights, that it really needs to sort out its misogynistic patriarchy, and that the "Iranian Minister of Justice" is an oxymoron. But a state of the US is about to execute a woman with an IQ of 72 for allegedly plotting to kill her husband, and the chance of being executed for various offences in the US is directly linked to socioeconomic status and skin colour. Am I supposed to draw the same conclusions about the US?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
At $74 a barrel
You see, they're not selling oil in dollars, and *that* is the problem.
Deleted
That's what they did.
If it spreads, it will destroy the US dollar as the international reserve currency, cause a huge amount of inflation in the US and destroy the US as the world superpower.
Deleted
They keep threatening to wipe an entire country off the map.
I thought they were effectively copying the USA foreign policies and going for "regime change".
e.g.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
Deleted
It's going to a take a few years of US complaining about Iran & some UN resolutions to sanction Iran before there is a war.
Though the real trigger will be when the US economy is in doldrums and needs to be turned around. Nothing like war to stimulate it - and, hey, we've already set up a candidate for the war for a decade now with propaganda that demonizes Iran and the US "patience for years" for a "diplomatic solution".
(I am not supporting Iran or against the US in anyway. This post is more about how these things work)
The nation that just invaded two of your neighbors is threatening to invade. But don't try to come up with any sneaky way to defend yourself. Just remain calm while the Freedom Police check you for anything they don't approve of.
I know if the Russians and Iran invaded Mexico and Canada, we'd just sit quietly and hope for the best. Right?
The S-300 system even in it's original non-upgraded from would be enough to shift the balance of an air war with Israel.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Let's just put things in perspective: 1) The reactor is about is the worst suited for producing weapons grade radioactive materials. The fuel cycle is observed not just by the Russians but by the IAAE inspectors. 2) Iran is not run by warmongering crazy mullahs. It is a semi-democratic country with a complex system of checks and balances including the Supreme Leader, the President, the elected Assembly of Experts that has the power to remove the SL, the Parliament, the Islamic judiciary, the powerful Revolutionary Guard. If anything, many experts believe that the power balance has shifted from the religious authorities to the Revolutionary Guard controlled military-industrisl complex who Ahmadinejad represents. Some have gone as far as saying that the SL has not power and is a puppet of Ahmadinejad. 3) Iran is not going to attack anyone first, yet alone Israel. It's strategic policy is based on deterrence. Ahmadinejad's is a populist and his fiery speeches are generally aimed at the internal audience, the conservative majority in the countryside/provincial cities outside of the liberal Northern Tehran. Israel plays dumb when it pretends that his populist rhetoric represents the consensus of the Iranian power elites.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
And Iran only threatened to wipe The West off the map, starting with Israel, with any means at their disposal.
No, they didn't. They said nothing of the sort.
They said that the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
This is a poetic way of expressing their wish that the government of Israel, as it is today, would become a thing of the past.
Regardless of what I think of the geopolitics of the Middle East, it bugs me that people repeat some lies over and over again. Although Göbbels said that a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth, let's try to stick to the REAL facts in this matter.
OK?
In sufficient numbers, with well-trained operators, yes. Until the F 35 appears.
The S 400 would "threaten" the American air force more than the IAF at the moment.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
From my European point of view, they're not any crazier than the evangelicals who supported Bush and who support Zionism.
Every truly independent nation state works in their own best interest. That's a given. I don't understand why you got a insightful mod. Russia is not Colombia or Mexico. For the Iranians case, getting into a war of choice against the west would mean the end of the Iranian regime. That would be an unlikely case of extreme collective stupidity. Your mention of North Korea reinforces the point of why the Iranians "would" want nuclear weapons, nothing more.
This plant produces plutonium-240 useless for weapons so the only contentious point remaining in Iran's nuclear program is their enrichment facilities.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Now this must be some completely new, never before reached, level of bold faced, smirking, arrogant historical revisionism. Hitler and Stalin were bitter enemies and Wehrmacht needed no Soviet help whatsoever establishing itself in the 1930, having been simply a conglomeration of long-standing, existing German institutions of the Heer (army), the Kriegsmarine (navy) and the Luftwaffe (air force). In fact the Soviet volunteers, with Stalin's blessing, actively fought Wehrmacht in Spain when Hitler assisted Franco.
The only "cooperation" between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany occurred during the attack on Poland in 1939, who at the time was the enemy of both, having attacked Soviet Union repeatedly trying to re-conquer Lithuania - seems that all sides involved had rather arrogant delusions of grandeur.
So the rest of your comment can be safely dismissed as is likely equally as reliable as that statement about Soviets helping to "train" and "establish" Wehrmacht.
Some of those require a considerable degree of paranoia. OTOH, as I mentioned, history gives Iran multiple reasons to be paranoid.
r = kilograms of radioactive material available to Iran
b = number of people in the Iranian regime who believe that low cut blouses cause earthquakes
m = monetary value of equipment and explosives supplied during the past 40 years to groups who use it to build IEDs and suicide bomb vests
d = r x b x m
d = percent increase in the odds that a dirty bomb (not a fission or fusion weapon) will be detonated in Israel or the US sometime in the next 5 years
Feel free to prove, disprove, or edit as necessary.
I recently wrote a blog post about this over here: http://lockethepundit.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-iran-really-have-peaceful-nuclear.html
Of course, but I think it's pretty clear that Obama will not be known as the one who started a major conflict in the ME hence American Air Force is largely irrelevant.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
This reactor has been built over how many years with how many different people involved?
I'm sure has time has gone on the plan has been amended and amended and amended... I'm fearful that this reactor is a Chernobyl just waiting to happen.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Have you ever stopped to consider that the reason that Canada gets along so well without much of a military is because of the US?
Canada and the US are very, very friendly. The countries get along great diplomatically and there's no need to guard the border (I don't mean that there aren't controls for crossing, I mean there's no watching for each other pulling any military tricks). It is well understood that because the US likes Canada, and because any invasion of Canada could be a precursor to an invasion of the US that the US will defend Canada with its full might and fury.
Well, that leads to a situation of Canada not having to worry about its own defense very much. Nobody will be invading Canada because the US will smash them. So they don't need to have much of a military force. They more or less have a small amount of highly trained people to do special operations type stuff, as well as other basic needs like coastal security and so on.
Were the US not there, they might well need a larger military.
The situation with militaries isn't as simple as it might appear. Anyone who says "Oh needing a military is a thing of the past, big countries don't go to war anymore," has their head in the sand. Having a strong defense is still a real concern.
That all said, I do think the US could draw down a lot. I don't think that so much of the world should get to have free defense courtesy of the US tax payer. You find that a good number of countries in Europe and Asia get away with a lot less defense than they might otherwise need because the US maintains large bases there. I say let's not do that, let's start slowly drawing those down.
How exactly the fact that they were democratically elected justifies killing their political opponents and civilians of another country !?
If you see no difference between "crazy" evangelicals and people who fire rockets at civilians I see no reason to continue this discussion with you.
That these women-stoning gay-killing "victims" have any motives other than living in total harmony with gaia is like telling a democrat chicago politician that he earns enough money and doesn't need bribes.
Incidentally Iran unveiled it's "ambassador of death" today. Isn't that a coincidence ? Well, actually it might potentially even be a coincidence. Still, it says something about them ...
But of course, don't let me appear racist. Hereby I testify :
1) there are no gays in Iran
2) islam does not call for stoning, nor does any contemporary muslim call for stoning and execution for gays. And it most certainly is not the case that all islamic scholars, of all 4 schools agree on the stoning and killing
3) if any of these statements appear to have anything to do with religion, that's a mistaken impression. I certainly do not claim that either on seeks to kill, or one clearly ignores allah's wishes, which obviously means you're not a muslim. This isn't true, of course, but it would be doubly true if all contemporary religious schools were to agree that this is so. But of course it's not true.
4) all these guys want is peace and harmony for all mankind in gaia. Amen.
5) that peace they want obviously makes forcing Jews to drop their defenses the good and moral thing to do, after all, anything else would be racist, now wouldn't it
Uhm, you really are clueless: The Soviet Union was instrumental in rebuilding and training Wehrmacht. 300 Luftwaffe pilots trained and developed new methods in Lipetsk, in Russia. Tank tactics were developed in Russia too, near Kazan. There were huge areas assigned to the germans, with german names, german street signs etc.
Defended a massacre... or maybe just annexed that part of Georgia ? And nobody said a word...
There are no "cool guys" when it comes no nuclear weapons. Not Iran, not North Korea, not Russia, not the USA.
Uhm ... not quite.
You're the revisionist here. Google "molotov ribbentrop" and read up on a bit of history preceding it. You do know that nazi translates to socialist, right ? Why wouldn't they have been allies ?*
It is a proven historical fact that the USSR knew beforehand about Hitler's invasions (including dates), and supported the attacks (or at least did nothing to stop them). Furthermore the USSR knew beforehand of the endlosung and even helped Nazi intelligence with it.
Wikipedia's take. Note the mention of "territorial and political rearrangements", in a secret part of the treaty.
But hey, what's a bit of lying when it's to demonize the US ? Let's chalk up your statement to be "fake but accurate", right ? Also known as lying and deceiving for political ends. Hey isn't that exactly what you accuse (but fail to prove in a big way) your opponents of ?
* I know of course, that you're intention is to demonize the right, even knowing full well that all genocides of the 20th century were committed by people who self-identified as "socialists", and professed policies (ie. government control of the economy) that are clearly leftist. Oh right you self-identify as socialist, so of course you want to deny that blatant fact of history. And we're to accept that they are the complete opposite of you, that they really were *shudder* republikans. Any history that conflicts with that view is to be discarded as "revisionist". Oh please.
Well according to the leftist propagandist Goebbels this is actually a very good tactic. Especially if you have some thugs and guns behind it. There's nothing new about lefties using those fascist and communist tactics, of course, they were invented, and remain the near-exclusive domain, of the left.
Absolutely. The US averages one major war every 20 years. That accounts for over 50% of all wars in the last 200 years.
In the last two centuries, the US has been there in 90% of all insurrections, coup d'etats and minning assassinations.
The deal is, that's where the US gets its power from. The US has no heavy industry, agriculture, mining, or any other significant export. Their only exports are shitty movies and bullets.
How is it then that such a country is the most powerful and rich in the world? Well, first, it was slavery. Then, slavery was outsourced. The US needs to keep its nose in other country's affairs to assure the availability of unstable political and social situations, that produce poverty (cheap labor), wars, and insurrections. In order to support its current position, the US needs half of the world in poverty (provides cheap labor), 10% of the world in war (allows the politicians to move the money earned towards their friends at Lockheed Martin and other companies), and another 10% in unstable situations (civil war) (in order to fix the oil prices).
That's roughly their strategy, and it'll continue to be that way for a long time. Voting changes nothing.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Exactly! So who do you want in charge of regime change? Iran?
how about Einstein, Heisenberg or Bohr?
It's a light water reactor. So Chernobyl can't happen.
Bullshit. The pact had to do with invasion of Poland in 1939 and mutual "non aggression" and was a ploy by Hitler to keep the Soviet Union away until he was ready to attack. It was signed in 1939 mere weeks before attack on Poland.
Because, you revisionist idiot, the "Socialist" in NSDAP had as much to do with "communist" in the Soviet system as the "People's Republic" in the name had to do with democracy in North Korea or Saddam's Iraq. Stalin and Hitler were both authoritarian ass-hats who hated each other but Hitler was keen on big business, aristocracy and wealth while Stalin was using "communism" as his shtick for power and control. Subsequently the first people persecuted during the rise of Nazis to power in Germany were ... communists and amongst Hitler's most admiring supporters were names such as multi-millionaires like Krupp and Ford (Hitler even passed special laws just for his best super-rich buddies). The last remnants of any kind of "socialism" in the NSDAP were gotten rid of in the "night of the long knives" where the brown-shirt worker "rabble" of the SA was dealt with via bullets to their heads. And that was in 1934.
Speaking of lies, the words "US" are nowhere present in my comment to which you are replying. Projection much?
Yes, particularly the Emperor Hirohito (that well known socialist rabble rouser) and the US "lefties" who dropped some nukes in his backyard and burned a few hundred thousand people alive. Then there were of course those "socialists" who killed 3 million people in Vietnam via copious use of the B52s, napalm and M16s...
In short, you are complete idiot and any discussion with you is not likely to lead anywhere.
[citation needed]
"The deal is, that's where the US gets its power from. The US has no heavy industry, agriculture, mining, or any other significant export."
I think you mean "had." The US currently has all of those things.
This is what happens when you let other people think for you. Iran's foreign policy is by no means sweet and innocent. But then again neither is US foreign policy. Remember the US doesn't just talk about removing regimes, it actually does it (or tries to). Grenada, Liberia, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... and these are the obvious ones - the ones we actually know about.
American Indians, Japanese (Internment camps), Blacks, Invaded Canada, Annexed Texas from Mexico, etc. Yes the protestant white America has done much.
... that's still 210 megawatts short of the 1.21 JIGOWATTS [sic] required for time travel
GP's post is a very condensed retelling of the books of Victor Suvorov. As far as I know, most mainstream historians, both in Russia and in Western countries, consider most of it to be amateur revisionist history - but read the Wikipedia article (including the "Criticism" section), and judge for yourself.
You do know that nazi translates to socialist, right ?
Yes, the full name of the party was National Socialist German Workers' Party. It should also be noted that it had been the name of the party before Hitler joined it, and that it had been much more leftist until he took leadership in it. Indeed, some veteran members of the party fought against Hitler's "move to the right", but the dissent was crushed very quickly.
Why wouldn't they have been allies ?
I dunno, maybe because Soviet Union was mostly Russian, and, according to Nazist racial theories, Russians (as well as other Slavic people) were considered subhumans, only fit to be slaves (after the majority would be exterminated to free up lands for German settlers)? Or, perhaps, because Hitler considered Bolshevism (and Marxism in general) a world domination plot by Jews, which claims were openly published in Nazi propaganda?
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a pure land grab done at a right chance. While we're at it, it's worth noting that a very large chunk of Polish lands that Soviet Union occupied as an aftermath of that pact were the same lands that Poland annexed from Soviet Russia during the 1920 Soviet-Polish war (hence why it was referred to as "liberation of Western Ukraine and Belarus" in Soviet propaganda, and there is a good deal of truth to that). Of course Soviet leaders couldn't miss the chance to regain territorial losses given the opportunity! But it doesn't mean that they shared the ideology ... Both Stalin and Hitler knew full well that they'd be at each other's throats soon enough - it was just a matter of who jumped first, and Stalin grossly misjudged the timing - but that war was inevitable was common knowledge for the Soviets from early 30s.
Oh right the old "communism works, it's just never been implemented right" argument.
Of course none of the socialist governments in history, none of them, have ever even approached socialism. None of these ever had anything to do with socialism ... And of course it's totally racist of me to assume that different socialists have anything to do with eachother.
Riiiight ...
Even if one believes that drivel, the catch is, of course, given that this socialism has never been implemented and all historical attempts to do so "devolved" into genocide, what exactly would stop the next attempt from doing ... exactly the same ?
And the grand total of US "comitted" genocides according to you are ... hiroshima. That's a pretty sad deathcount for a genocide you know. I mean South-Sudanese muslims killed more Jews than that in their desert. And are you seriously going to pretend that the US had, like those muslims, no reason to attack hiroshima, except for "they're ugly little nips". Of course.
Given the lies and total twisting and raping of history you have to constantly commit to even approach the point where your ideology isn't the genocidal monstruosity history's shown it to be ... don't you think that maybe there's something wrong with your ideology, not with history ?
"amid international fears that Iran will use the facility to make nuclear weapons" ...
should be: ... amid american/israeli fears that Iran will use the facility to make nuclear weapons.
I learned off Wiki this year that India's nukes basically came from Canada back in the day. Apparently we built them a whole bunch of Candu reactors. They were not "supposed" to be used to produce weapon material. India modified them so the would. When Canada found out, they pulled out of India. India continued to make modified Candu reactors now called "Candu Derivative Reactors" as they are modified design of the Candu that was supplied to them. India is now a nuclear power. Once the cat is out of the bag it is too late. I believe they use it them to produce tritium or something like that. I believe the originals are still running, but there are about 3 or 4 times as many derivative reactors now.
Anyway given history of proliferation, and the kind of statements that Iran has said publicly, I think it is pretty irresponsible of Russia to assist Iran possibly in its nuke program. I think Iran is one of the last countries that should get nukes. If I was a citizen, I would be getting more and more nervous the closer they get. If it is ever found that they have nukes, I think the reaction, particularly by the USA would be "very bad".
Yeah, the Nazis were such socialists that they killed every socialist, Communist, social democrat, or trade unionist they could find!
No, actually, when they say "regime change" they mean changing "ethnically Jewish country" to "religiously Muslim country". Try getting your information from something other than a conspiracy website.
If you keep burning so many strawmen your ass will catch on fire.
At no point did I claim that "communism works". No political or economic system so far invented "works". They are all fucked up to one degree or another and prone to being corrupted, just in different ways. In practice their core differences are just a choice of who fucks whom.
You just keep blabbering to yourself. All I did was to point out that a lot of tyrants called themselves this or the other and most did not bother following any of the tenets of whatsoever ideology they pretended to be champions of. Subsequently "socialists" like Hitler turned out to be aristocrat-loving social climbers, "communists" like Stalin turned out to be state-capitalists, Pan-Arab nationalists like Saddam turned out just to be power-mad thieves, etc and so on.
Also "socialist" itself has so many definitions that it can make one's head spin. Therefore the main reason Hitler is considered a "right wing" dictator (as opposed to Stalin who is tagged "left wing") is because of his choices of alliances. The Bolsheviks purged all aristocracy and business elites out of Russia and so Stalin followed the "workers/army" path to power - that was his only option. Hitler on the other hand jettisoned his "working class" allies early on in favour of the big business wealth and aristocracy. Hence the difference.
Nothing. That is why I am not a proponent of socialism or any other "-ism". Including "capitalism".
Right. The "but, but, but ... the other guy is just as bad!" ... err ... "argument".
That is actually the main beef people have with the US, that it grand-stands and postures as a "land of the free", "defender of the oppressed" and "exporter of democratic principles" etc and so on ... and then proceeds to sell the "do as I say but don't do as I do" timeless canard. Add to it a copious amount of greed and arrogance, mix in some shameless foreign adventurism and subsequently it is a little surprise that The United States of Hypocrisy are such a lightning rod for hate. Incidentally utter supremacist, greedy hypocrisy is also a chief reason why Israel ("the only democracy in the Middle East! Ha ha!") is so popular a destination for home-made high explosives.
There are always official "reasons" for every action actually based on "they're ugly little nips". At the time of the Hiroshima bombings the US population was encouraged by its government (via a mass media campaign) to think of the Japanese ("japs") as swarming masses of faceless vermin. Cartoons depicting Japanese in a way similar to those appearing in Nazi publications depicting Jews were commonplace. Following the war, the US occupation authorities confiscated all photographs of victims
You do know that the Nazis hated actual Socialists and Communists almost as much as Jews, right?
You are so clueless I'm wondering if you are not actually a troll.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it