Iran warns of 'consequences' if referred to UN re uranium

[Totally_Baffled]

This maybe true and I like your analysis of this. I guess this would need further study but my question is, in which case why hasn't the UK made more use of gas for power generation so far?

Im not sure I understand , 40% of our electricity comes from natural gas and will expand to between 60-80% over the next 10 years.

The diversity we have at the moment (ie coal and nuclear) are all from the pre cheap natural gas era.

If the north sea had contained more gas than it did Im sure a greater % of electricity would of come from natural gas, but it takes time and in the mean time we ran out of the cheap stuff lol

[Totally_Baffled]

Of course the other point is this:

Many believe that the supply of uranium is in deficit NOW , let alone after Iran has expanded her nuclear program.

Hell according to the BP stats review Irans gas will last over 100 years. A lot of people (including those on this website) suggest that Uranium has less than half that(although I think this is not true).

But if the Uranium numbers are right, it makes the Iranians move even more strange.

[skeptik]

IMO, if Iran wants nuclear power , then fine , but if there is a sniff of a weapons programme, then the international communtiy has every right to be very concerned.

The international community wouldnt have time to get concerned.

If there was a genuine sniff of a nuclear weapns program, the Israelis would be all over it with some of the $100 million dollars worth of advanced bunker buster bombs that they took delivery of from the USA a few months ago.

The Israelis bombed Iraqs nuclear reactor back in '81 , and I'm sure they wouldnt hesitate with a country run by mad moolahs (as dubya calls them) that wishes to "wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world." as their President so delightfully put it just recently

...but there have been anumber of credible reports that Iran is 5 to 10 years off from any sort of nuclear weapons capabilty, so whats going on now is really just posturing and sabre rattling for domestic audiences....

[Totally_Baffled]

...but there have been anumber of credible reports that Iran is 5 to 10 years off from any sort of nuclear weapons capabilty, so whats going on now is really just posturing and sabre rattling for domestic audiences....

I hope you are right....

[Bozzio]

Im not sure I understand , 40% of our electricity comes from natural gas and will expand to between 60-80% over the next 10 years.

Really! Where do your figures come from? According to Chris Vernon we are using less gas now for electricity generation than 2 years ago (40.6% in 2003 and 37.5% in 2005). http://www.energybulletin.net/8422.html How do we achieve 60-80% when our gas supplies peaked in 2000 and 70 % of all our gas consumption is currently used for domestic heating?

If the north sea had contained more gas than it did Im sure a greater % of electricity would of come from natural gas, but it takes time and in the mean time we ran out of the cheap stuff lol

We've been bringing gas on shore since 1967. How long does one need? You're statement appears to contradict itself since why invest in new gas fired power stations when gas prices are rising and we are running out. LNG won't help - time, money supply issues.

There is a real risk that the more volatile regimes will use (or supply to terrorists) nukes outside of the "option of last resort as the nation is threatened" kind of criteria.

Maybe, maybe not and of course monitoring will need to take place - but intelligence gathering by US, UK, Russia etc is going on all the time. If Iran acts strangely it won't be hard to spot and be acted upon.

I guess the problem I have with our attitude to Iran is that it is one rule for us (US, UK, West) and one rule for them (Iran, Middle East, holders of great natural resources). The recent case with 'Scooter' Libby says it all. Here's a man indicted for perjury after a two year investigation and yet Bush in his press conference speech yesterday stated (not exact words) that in our regime, everyone is innocent until proven guilty (referring to Libby). Tell that to all the invaded countries, suspects held without trial, Guantanamo prisoners and Iranians that the US and UK have harmed or seek to harm.

Can I add that this is not the first time the US and UK has meddled with Iran for gain - and we're the civilised, caring, liberal, free-thinking, religiously grounded, trustworthy West!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

[skeptik]

Im not sure I understand , 40% of our electricity comes from natural gas and will expand to between 60-80% over the next 10 years.

Really! Where do your figures come from? According to Chris Vernon we are using less gas now for electricity generation than 2 years ago

I think T_B is quoting the Govt's last published thoughts ( if you can call it thought) on the matter, the idiotic White Paper of 2003 "Our Energy Future"

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/index.shtml

[Bozzio]

I think T_B is quoting the Govt's last published thoughts ( if you can call it thought) on the matter, the idiotic White Paper of 2003 "Our Energy Future"

Thanks for that Skeptic. This is the same white paper that on page 81 (6.25) states that the government will seek to maintain good relations with the Middle East. Mmmm, I wonder how they are doing that?

Agreed, this paper is trash and full of contradictions.

[fishertrop]

Iran: Rich, armed and angry, how dangerous is it to the world?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 323335.ece

Yet Iran is a complicated and confusing country, as visitors to Tehran soon become aware......

[skeptik]

Agreed, this paper is trash and full of contradictions.

I think even the govt is aware of that now. Hence the appointment of Lord Birt as chief propagandist for the next round of nuclear power stations.

I expect there will also be more enthusiasm of 'clean' coal power too.

[Totally_Baffled]

We've been bringing gas on shore since 1967. How long does one need? You're statement appears to contradict itself since why invest in new gas fired power stations when gas prices are rising and we are running out. LNG won't help - time, money supply issues

Gas on the global stage (apart from the US) is abundant. The problem is moving the stuff around.

The reason we are still planning to expand gas is because despite having to import, it is STILL cheaper than nuclear when you consider all the costs. These power plants can also be built relatively quickly.

This is the point I was trying to make , why does Iran want nuclear when they have over 100+ years of gas! THIS IS LONGER THAN SOME PEOPLE THINK URANIUM WILL LAST!!!!

In addition to this they would be exporting gas , whilst importing uranium and having to sub the cost of disposal etc etc

You are right about the white paper , it is pap , and we will never see 60-80% of electricity from gas. This is what is forecasted IF we do nothing.

Of course the debate is why rely on gas from unstable regions when you can get coal/uranium (choose poison) from friendlier nations.

[Bozzio]

This is the point I was trying to make , why does Iran want nuclear when they have over 100+ years of gas! THIS IS LONGER THAN SOME PEOPLE THINK URANIUM WILL LAST!!!!

Hi TB,

Point taken, I totally agree with you here. My quote concerned North Sea gas but, agreed, the world supply of gas is huge.

[Totally_Baffled]

I guess the problem I have with our attitude to Iran is that it is one rule for us (US, UK, West) and one rule for them (Iran, Middle East, holders of great natural resources). The recent case with 'Scooter' Libby says it all. Here's a man indicted for perjury after a two year investigation and yet Bush in his press conference speech yesterday stated (not exact words) that in our regime, everyone is innocent until proven guilty (referring to Libby). Tell that to all the invaded countries, suspects held without trial, Guantanamo prisoners and Iranians that the US and UK have harmed or seek to harm.

I understand your point and it essentially correct.

But, the bottom line is , the chances of the US, UK the west, using nuclear weapons in anger or other than in self defence are close to zero.

The same cannot be said for Iran , they seem to acknowledge such by using language such as "wiping Israel from the map"

Slightly off topic, but we are quick to have a go at US/UK intervention in the world. I agree that we have f**ked up in many areas, but is there hypocrisy in those that criticise ALL intervention?

After all, what would of happened if we hadn't kicked Saddam out of Kuwait? Would other countries been plundered?

What would of happened in the former Yugoslavia if NATO hadn't intervened?

There are other examples, but on top of this there was the recent esculation between Pakistan and India, who is asked to step in and diffuse tensions? , the US!!!

Sudan starts to go tits up , who is asked to intervene militarily? Yep the US.

Perhaps it would be better to judge each case, rather making sweeping statements on how evil the west is?

And so on, and so forth....

[peaky]

But, the bottom line is , the chances of the US, UK the west, using nuclear weapons in anger or other than in self defence are close to zero.

Really? Given that the US is the only country ever to have used them, that Jack Straw has said the UK would be prepared to use them, given that the US is developing/has developed 'theatre' nuclear weapons, given that the USA's 'pre-emptive' attack on Iraq was the kind of action regarded in the worst light by the Nuremberg Trials, I have to say I don't share your level of confidence.

After all, what would of happened if we hadn't kicked Saddam out of Kuwait? Would other countries been plundered?

Well, if we hadn't supplied him with all those weapons and been chummy to him for so long and then when his own people rose up against them we just left them to get jumped on it's maybe a good questions to ask.

What would of happened in the former Yugoslavia if NATO hadn't intervened?

It's all too long to go into, but in the book I mentioned earlier (Web of Deceit - Mark Curtis) he goes into a lot of detail about NATO and Yugoslavia. Read what he has to say and you might have a rather different take on things.

There are other examples, but on top of this there was the recent esculation between Pakistan and India, who is asked to step in and diffuse tensions? , the US!!!

Pakistan and India are always sparring with each other and have (I believe) threated each other with nukes. Who supplied them with nuclear capable jet fighters? - why the good old UK government. Of course they were only for training purposes...

The point behind these points really is that it's not that the West is inherently evil or that the Middle East (for example) is inherently evil. The thing is that as John Pilger, Mark Curtis, Noam Chomsky to name a few have pointed out, the West paints itself very much as the saviour of freedom and bringer of democracy whilst the others have been described as "An Axis of Evil" (tm) as I'm sure you're aware. many countries outside the west who we constantly deride for appalling human rights records, or civil war and so on have been trained, financially supported and armed by the West and then we come over all moral when they use what they've been encouraged to use. The world is a messy and grey fuzzy place in the political sphere that is for sure.

[Bozzio]

Perhaps it would be better to judge each case, rather making sweeping statements on how evil the west is?

Yes, I think we are getting off the point here and it wasn't my intention to stoke up this argument. However I cannot agree that my statements are sweeping.

a) Saddam's attack on Kuwait - agreed it was wrong and required resolution. The West's subsequent sanctions were, however, barbaric http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sa ... dexone.htm and have resulted in thousands of infant deaths. It makes me so proud.

b) NATO and Yugoslavia. Yogolslavia fell apart and fighting broke out because of the West. We pushed Yugoslavia into a corner which re-ignited centuries of tensions between its people. In the 1980's the IMF intervened in Yugoslavia and started issueing credits for it to buy goods and services. In 1986 the IMF linked these credits to political reform and constitutional change. Yugoslavia was essentially controlled by the IMF being totally guided by yes...you've got it...the US. THe IMF finally insited that Yugoslavia open its foreign ownership rights and enter the Western economy properly. This led Yugoslavia to re-organise its welfare and social economic programmes, programmes which had long held Yugoslavia and its diverse population in-check. It couldn't cope and its economy crashed in December 1989 (the dinar fell from US$22 to US$0.11). By 1991 hyper-inflation had set in. As the largest contributor to the IMF, the US insisted on massive economic and social reform. Finally the US removed the credit system and told Yugoslavia to hold new elections. The intention of the US was to change post cold war Yugoslavia into a Western style economy. These elections showed up inequalities between the Serbs, Croats, Slovenians and Muslims and centuries of fighting erupted again. NATO finally stepped in due to the apparent genocide of Kosovans by Serbs although this apparent genocide was identified by a man called William Walker, the US head of the Organistaion for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Mr Walker is widely regarded as controversial and played a significant part in the Contra scandal. The genocide is believed by many to have been set-up by the US in order to bring in NATO. Why...well one reason was oil! http://icpj.org/Yugoslavia.html (although there are many more reports on this elsewhere).

c) Sudan. Sorry, but this is about oil again. Type oil and Darfur into Google and see what you get (e.g http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/2025.cfm
Darfur is the last untapped region of Sudan and the US wants its oil companies in there.

Let's agree to end this side of the thread. It's kind of pointless anyway.

[snow hope]

We are where we are and we can't change what has already happened!

So accepting that how do we go forward from here?

Do we let other countries develop nuclear technology and "the bomb" or do we call a halt to it, knowing that this minimises the risk of a nuclear war?

If a country is a large exporter of oil then it is hard to understand why it wants to develop a nuclear industry unless it thinks it is about to run out overnight - unlikely. What about if that country has a public threat to wipe out another country? Should that make a difference?

The Americans are far from perfect and their foreign policy has swung back and forth to a ridiculous extent in the past. But I don't see too many American suicide bombers blowing up Sydney, Delhi, London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Moscow, Istanbul, etc.

There are certain countries in the world that do seem to pose a greater threat than others - surely to goodness we are not too naieve to accept that? Lets just be sensible....... and try to reduce the world-wide tensions. There are enough madmen, psychopaths and terrorists out there who are trying their damndest to ratchet things up.