Iran locked and loaded

nacho libre

Judt wrote:

You must remember about Iraq in 2003 that it was basically the military left over from 1991, when the US and coalition allies smashed air defence. The US is against any arms sales to Iran, but once more, the US Air Force can and has smashed entire countries without putting a boot on the ground. I think it's anti-American fantasy to dream of US soldiers dying in their thousands fighting off the mighty Iranian military. In every war the US and its allies have gone into in the past two decades the media and others have been having these wet dreams. In the end it's the tin-pots who usually wind up dead on the road.

I am not saying it as part of anti-american fantazy. I knew the initial coventional war in Iraq would be a swift affair.
Iran now has a better equipped army than Iraq had.
The U.S. was against this particular Russian arms sale to Iran because it would make an air war harder. The U.S. won't realised their aims in Iran through air-power alone in my opinion.
They, as i've said, will win a conventional war with Iran but it won't be the walkover you predict.

bk

nacho libre wrote:

You are comparing two vastly inferior armies when you compare Iraq and Iran.
What level of air-defense had Iraq in 2003?

Not much left in 20003, but in 91 they had some of the best air defences in the region.

nacho libre wrote:

Why was America so against Russia's recent sale of air defense equipment to Iran?

Because they are very accurate and dangerous weapons which would likely cause the lose of a number of US aircraft.

However don't for a moment confuse that with the US losing an air war. Yes, the US would lose a number of aircraft, just like they did in the first gulf war, but they would still have destroyed most of those SAM's by the end of week two and have complete control of the sky and therefore their land forces would also be completely un-stopable.

nacho libre wrote:

America can't rely on airpower alone to win. I agree with you America will win as they have the better weaponry all-round but it won't be nearly as easy as you suggest.

Air power is the key to winning a war, it has been that way since the second world war. The question to ask is, not if they would win a war with Iran, they will do that easily, rather the question to ask is how do they win the peace?

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

So why not use the cheap uranium for electricity and sell the oil and gas?

I should probably check this but I think Iran has not got much in the way of uranium ore to mine for powering their great nuclear energy future for very long.:)

InFront wrote:

We in Europe should be encouraging nuclear energy for Iran.

Can I have some of your dope InFront? Should we really jump for joy when all the great unstable so-called "states" in the ME acquire these technologies (and the potential to apply them to building weapons rather than just producing electricity)?

Another, some might say related, technology Iran seems to be very interested in is, coincidentally, missiles and rockets! But perhaps Europe should get some people from Ariane to help them with that so Iran can be our partners in exploring space and launching satellites or something...:)

Though I suppose Europe has already got Israels' atom bombs and their delivery systems to worry about so why not Iran's too! Like Johnny Logan says, What's Another Nuke?:D He did say that didn't he?

Manic Moran

Can I have some of your dope InFront? Should we really jump for joy when all the great unstable so-called "states" in the ME acquire these technologies

There's nothing wrong with the concept of nuclear energy for Iran, or indeed, as far as I'm concerned, anyone. Reactor technology is one thing, enrichment technology is something else. Hence the point of dispute.

NTM

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

Can I have some of your dope InFront? Should we really jump for joy when all the great unstable so-called "states" in the ME acquire these technologies (and the potential to apply them to building weapons rather than just producing electricity)?

"So called states"? I'm not even sure what that's intended to mean.

Anyway what about that other nuclear state of the Middle East? The one who isn't answerable to the IAEA, the one who isn't signed up to the Non Proliferation Treaty but passes off unchecked?

Iran has been engaged in nuclear research for about forty years, long before the revolution. It was given the legal right to develop nuclear fuel energy, and that right has not been taken away, it is just that foreign nations like the US and the UK have demanded that it's a right they don't want Iran to share anymore.

Nuclear weaponry is a completely different subject.

Surely you don't deny that, if you were the President of Iran, you would want nuclear fuel energy? It is the most rational of options for a state whose economy is facing serious turmoil in the coming decades. Bad timing to suggest going nuclear, yes, but it's a fair suggestion.

The problem here is that nobody ever hears about the Iranian economy. People are too busy talking about international relations with the Government to ask what the systemic problems are. To drag up a (rather out of context, somewhat overused) line from the Clinton Presidency 'It's the economy, stupid'.
So I still argue that an economically strong Iran could be a European ally, but there will never be an economically strong Iran in the next two to three decades while they waste their energy reserves on themselves. Sell it to the oil guzzling Americans or Europeans and find cheaper ways to further Iranian infrastructure and energy needs.

Also, this from today's Guardian

US intelligence on Iran does not stand up, say Vienna sources

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.

The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran, and raises the possibility that the US might resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites

Judt

Surely you don't deny that, if you were the President of Iran, you would want nuclear fuel energy? It is the most rational of options for a state whose economy is facing serious turmoil in the coming decades. Bad timing to suggest going nuclear, yes, but it's a fair suggestion.

It would be fair if this weren't the Islamic Republic of Iran. Frankly, I'd rather be safe than sorry on this one. At the end of the day the price is your life, where nukes are concerned.

RedPlanet

Judt wrote:

They won every battle in Vietnam, but lost the peace. Yep, so they're crap peacekeepers. But they sure as hell can ruin your average tinpot's day.

Lost "the peace" in Vietnam?
What are you talking about.
The VC over-ran the country and the The Communist Party of Vietnam headed by Ho-Chi-Minh took power.
The yanks fled and "the Red menace" took over, which is precisely what the american's didn't want.
I don't know how you define terms of Victory and Defeat, but i'd say most people around the globe see that conflict as one big defeat for the good ol' USA. :rolleyes:

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

"So called states"? I'm not even sure what that's intended to mean.

I suppose it's unfair to apply that to Iran since (as far as I understand it) it would be one of the more cohesive states in the ME, but many ME countries are fractious collections of tribes/religious groups who bear grudges against each other and against "the West" held together in several cases by dictators and kings backed up by repressive laws, secret police etc.
Like Iraq before the US removed Saddam paving the way for alot of open religious/ethnic hatred and sectarian bloodletting. These countries having their own nuclear technology does not seem very healthy for Europe to me.

InFront wrote:

"Nuclear weaponry is a completely different subject.

Like the way the technology needed to launch a rocket and have it deliver a satellite into orbit to monitor the weather and all other kinds of useful peaceful goodstuff is in no way related to the the technology needed to launch a rocket tipped with a less innocuous payload to the edge of space and have it come back down on someone elses' heads a few thousand kms away?

InFront wrote:

Anyway what about that other nuclear state of the Middle East? The one who isn't answerable to the IAEA, the one who isn't signed up to the Non Proliferation Treaty but passes off unchecked?

I believe I mentioned Israel in my post as also being a threat to Europe.

InFront wrote:

So I still argue that an economically strong Iran could be a European ally

I don't believe that at all.
It's certainly a pipedream under the current rulers.
I don't see the bull talked about Iran's youthful population not liking the mullahs and their religious rules etc as leading to a change any time soon. In fact, if Iran gets more prosperous, the rulers will easily be able to buy off the key middle-class/educated section of the population with consumer doodads ala China while maintaining their absolute grip on power, building up their arsenals etc. Keep most of your people more-or-less happy and you can always have the option to do what you want in your dealings with those evil barbarians beyond your borders. It's worked for belligerant democracies, hasn't it, and belligerant dictatorships in the past - so why not a belligerant theocracy?

Manic Moran wrote:

There's nothing wrong with the concept of nuclear energy for Iran, or indeed, as far as I'm concerned, anyone.

If they just have reactors (maybe built by someone else) and depend on another country to enrich fuel for them they cannot be said to fully possess their own "nuclear technology" [the term I used] IMO.

RedPlanet

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't believe that at all.
It's certainly a pipedream under the current rulers.
I don't see the bull talked about Iran's youthful population not liking the mullahs and their religious rules etc as leading to a change any time soon. In fact, if Iran gets more prosperous, the rulers will easily be able to buy off the key middle-class/educated section of the population with consumer doodads ala China while maintaining their absolute grip on power, building up their arsenals etc. Keep most of your people more-or-less happy and you can always have the option to do what you want in your dealings with those evil barbarians beyond your borders. It's worked for belligerant democracies, hasn't it, and belligerant dictatorships in the past - so why not a belligerant theocracy?

It is the isolation that keeps the mullahs in power. Just like Castro.
Remove the isolation, and the people become more assertive.
Attacking Iran is probably the very worst thing anybody can do, regarding Iran's theocracy. It will galvanise the people around their leaders.

fly_agaric wrote:

If they just have reactors (maybe built by someone else) and depend on another country to enrich fuel for them they cannot be said to fully possess their own "nuclear technology" [the term I used] IMO.

Iran has an inalienable right to develop nuclear power. Period.
If you don't agree with that, then you don't agree with International law, and if you don't agree with international law, then you advocate tyranny.

fly_agaric

RedPlanet wrote:

It is the isolation that keeps the mullahs in power. Just like Castro.
Remove the isolation, and the people become more assertive.

At this point I'd refer to China again. I'm unsure if there is a direct connection between prosperity, free trade and the development of representative democracy, reasonably free press, courts that are not entirely corrupt and based on law rather than the whim of the current govt.

RedPlanet wrote:

Attacking Iran is probably the very worst thing anybody can do, regarding Iran's theocracy. It will galvanise the people around their leaders.

I don't actually know what should be done about this situation.
I don't believe the Iranians are interested in nuclear technology solely to build reactors and generate power any more than I believe the moon is made of green cheese.

I do know I don't want to see Iran developing its nuclear industry any further and at the moment anything short of a war which would slow them down is a very good thing IMO.

However, it may be impossible to stop them in the long run.
It's probably just the start of a nuclear arms race in that whole area of the world and eventually Eqypt, Saudi and god knows what else basket-case countries in the ME will have nukes and rockets capable of landing them ontop of any capital city in Europe...

RedPlanet wrote:

if you don't agree with international law, then you advocate tyranny.

What country/govt really believes in "International Law" when it cuts across their interests (feg attacking your enemies, making money, getting your hands on the commodities/energy your heavy industry needs) and they feel they are powerful enough themselves or have the allies they need on their side to ignore "international law"?

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

many ME countries are fractious collections of tribes/religious groups who bear grudges against each other and against "the West" held together in several cases by dictators and kings backed up by repressive laws, secret police etc.

Fractious collections of religious groups, a society led by one strong leader, repressive laws, employing secret police? That sounds like France, the USA, India, Pakistan, the UK, Israel or China that you're talking about. What's your point, that such states don't deserve nuclear power? It's far too late for that now.

Keep most of your people more-or-less happy and you can always have the option to do what you want in your dealings with those evil barbarians beyond your borders.

I don't want to see Iran developing its nuclear industry any further and at the moment anything short of a war which would slow them down is a very good thing IMO.

You want to see an economically weak Iran, is that your argument? Do you think that policy has worked so far?

Do you not understand that so long as the west keep their boot on Iran's head, it's never going to get its head out of the ****. Iran's trouble-making is a symptom of discontent. There's something wrong in the system that's lead them to this stage.

Economic success hasn't contributed to Iran getting like this, but economic stagnation certainly has.
The Iranian economy will - without any shred of doubt - worsen and worsen while oil and gas reserves are allowed to waste away. By current rates, in twenty five years time, the Iranian economy, like many in the middle east, will be in ruin.

What kind of international relations are going to come about then? What hope for any sort of partnerships will there be under those conditions? There has to be some amount of foresight. I'm not saying Iran need weapons, but they definitely do need energy. To maximise their economic success into the future, they need nuclear investment now.
It is in the Iranian economy's best domestic interests to build reactors and pursue nuclear energy, that is the best interests of their leadership; ultimately it is in the best interests of Europe and the USA as well.

Originally posted by Judt
It would be fair if this weren't the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Why?
What is your yardstick of "fair"? It isn't law, certainly.
Article IV of the Non Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed its name to, says "Go Nuclear". That is an inalienable right.

Everybody knows who is the real holder of the power in Iran, and the Ayatollah Khamene'i, the Wali Faqih, has written a fatwa against the use of nuclear weaponry.
He is the guy who makes the decisions on all international affairs.
He is in charge of the economy. He is in charge of the nuclear programme. He's the guy whose opinion you won't hear on Fox, because he doesn't make blunders, and you won't hear Bush refer to him very often either.

If Iran want to use nuclear weapons, they should probably remove "The Islamic Republic of" first, along with the Ayatollah. That's not going to happen: the Liberals in Iran are nobody. You can't condemn Iran because they "might build nuclear weapons" and then "they might have a revolution" and then they "might attack Israel". Lets just go on real facts instead. Iran needs nuclear energy.

Larry_o_C

Iran needs nuclear energy.

I never realised how many people were pro-nuclear energy until the Iran issue started. tell me, do you also belive Ireland needs nuclear energy?

Note: I'm not trying to divert the thread but well, if people are so determined that Iran should have it why not us?

InFront

Well we are already getting a tiny amount of nuclear energy in from Britain, and that's probably going to increase at some point with the new 500MW British connection to the national grid.

There are logistical problems with creating nuclear energy for Ireland by itself: the national grid makes it technically unattractive. We have better means of acquiring energy - especially useful in terms of wind and tidal power. We also have the Corrib gas field, and it's about time that was utilised.

But there is definitely a change coming, we are approaching the end of a viable fossil fuel runway, and nobody will be excluded from the transition. Nuclear energy doesn't suit everyone, but it certainly suits Iran.

Whether it suits Ireland or not is debatable, we may never need it, but it should never be ruled out. If alternative sources were to prove more inefficient, I'd say absolutely.

Now thats a scarey thought. Ireland a Nuclear power.

But to be honest, I don't think it can be stopped. The secret is out of the box, and once countries like Pakhistan started receiving help to develop it, it was pretty much open season. I don't particularly like any state in the M.East (including Israel) having nuclear capabilities but I don't see any way of stopping it. Its here. And its here to stay unless someone develops an alternative workable powersource.

Victor

bk wrote:

Victor wrote:

Ahem, http://webcom.com/~amraam/aaloss.html You claim to be somewhat authorative, but don't know basic fact. I contend that you are uninformed, bluffing or lying (as in you know its probably not true, but you are saying it anyway to win the argument).

Hey, remember attack the post, not the poster.

I should have clarified that I meant that the US didn't lose any aircraft in air to air combat. However looking at the link, it seems to say that one F18C was shot down by a Mig25, I've never heard that before and would be very surprised if true, so I'll do a bit of research into it and may very well stand corrected.

But there really isn't any need to call me a liar, that is uncalled for and a very low form of debate.

Semantic, but I didn't call you a liar. But must certainly I am saying you are being very selective with the truth. This came to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carny wrote:

"Alibi" - A technique used where the player has apparently won the game, but is denied a prize when the jointee invents a further, unforeseeable, condition of the game. For example, a player may be disqualified on the grounds of having leaned over a previously undisclosed "foul line."

bk wrote:

Air power is the key to winning a war, it has been that way since the second world war. The question to ask is, not if they would win a war with Iran, they will do that easily, rather the question to ask is how do they win the peace?

Many say that sea power is key to winning a war or in this case controlling the straits is key to winning a war.

Judt

Iran has a right. Wah wah wah. Iran just fired a rocket into space. "They're putting up weather satellites." Yep. And those missiles are also the basis of ICBM's, nukes that just about nobody can shoot down at present. Add two and two and I don't see how you guys are coming up with five.

Iran may have a legal right to nuclear energy, but Real Politik says that that's suicide. The next step is nuclear weapons. They're pointing at that so heavily they're probably sitting there in Tehran laughing their arses off at the "Iran deserves nuclear power!" crowd over here. Normally I don't mind being able to tell you "I told you so", but unless you, I and the boards servers are down in nuclear shelters I might not get the chance.

Iran is a country run by religious fanatics and nutjobs. That's why it shouldn't have nuclear power, which leads quite explicitly to nuclear weapons.

InFront

Judt wrote:

Wah wah wah

It's fine to say that it shouldn't have nuclear power, as long as you realise that your opinion doesn't really have any legal basis. You like to use the word realpolitik quite a lot, but "Shouldn't" doesn't matter one tiny bit.

bk

Victor wrote:

Semantic, but I didn't call you a liar. But must certainly I am saying you are being very selective with the truth. This came to mind:

As I said I was misinformed, not lying and I quickly and honestly owned up to it when I did the research and saw that I was wrong.

I'm typically a very logical and truthful person, I don't make stuff up just to win an argument, I usually research things thoroughly and look at both sides of an argument before making up my own opinion. I was honestly misinformed in this case as I had read an article that said the US hadn't lost any aircraft to air to air combat during the gulf war. I wasn't trying to be selective with the truth.

Victor wrote:

Many say that sea power is key to winning a war or in this case controlling the straits is key to winning a war.

Sea power use to be, but much less so since World War 2. Sea power would continue to be important in any major war like the US against Russia (50% of all of the US Nuclear arsenal are on their SSBN's) but plays a much smaller part in these smaller wars.

Yes the straits could certainly pose a problem, Iran would likely be able to control them for about 3 to 4 weeks, cutting off oil shipments through them and the resulting increase in oil prices, but it wouldn't be a war winning move. The straits are no longer vital to US military moves there, blocking the straits wouldn't stop US tank's streaming in from Iraq, Afghanistan, (maybe even Turkey) and said Tank forces would easily move down the coast and knock out the Iranian missiles positions along the coast, opening the straits back up.

I think many people forget about the success of the first Gulf War. Iraq actually had many more tanks then the coalition forces and almost double the number of artillery pieces. They also hadn't recent battle experience after their 8 year war with Iran, while the coalition forces had little recent battle experience (Falklands being the last war, but a different type of war).

Yet they were quickly wiped out within 4 days due to US air power and the far better US tanks, equipment and training. It is interesting to note that a majority of Iraqi tanks were actually destroyed by coalition tanks, not by US air power (of course it certainly helped a lot).

The Iraqis lots 4,000 tanks, the coalition just 4. The Iraqis lost 2,140 artillery pieces, the coalition just 1. It is estimated 25,000 Iraqi soldiers lost their lives, the coalition 378. Ironically it is estimated that some 31% of the coalition loses was due to "friendly fire"!!!

Now I'm sure the Iranians have learned a lot from the Iraqi mistakes and will be better prepared then the Iraqis and that the US would lose more people in a war with Iran. But it wouldn't be that significantly different. Remember the Iranian military is roughly only the same size as the Iraqi in the first Gulf war and that after 8 years of the Iraq Iran war, there were only able to come to a draw, so the outcome of any war with the US would be very unlikely to end any differently.

Now having said all that, I hope non of this happens, I actually don't want to see a war. But I'm just making the point to some people who seem to want to see the US badly beaten, that this isn't going to be it.

bk

InFront wrote:

There are logistical problems with creating nuclear energy for Ireland by itself: the national grid makes it technically unattractive. We have better means of acquiring energy - especially useful in terms of wind and tidal power. We also have the Corrib gas field, and it's about time that was utilised.

Just wondering, what is it about the national grid that makes Nuclear unattractive?

Manic Moran

Good question. I'm no electrical engineer, but I would have thought that turbines powered by nuclear-heated steam would generate the same sort of electricity as turbines powered by coal/gas-heated steam

NTM

InFront

No it's nothing to do with the means of generating the power, it's about nuclear setup being unsuitable on the scale of the Irish grid.
We're a small country here and our energy needs don't exactly fit nuclear power. One plant would satisfy the demand, that has a few important technical implications.
The first is the power output for our needs, which doesn't fit the bill. Any good nuclear plant is going to be about 1000-1500MW in size. Then because reactors are such awkward things, you need backups switched on in permanent standby. A related physical problem is the transmission of power across the grid - you're trying to get a current from one place (say, Kerry) to everywhere else in every single direction and into sparsely populated areas. When you pass a current through an electricity wire, you get progressive loss the further you go. Imagine that on a national scale with current going to the last inch of the country in each direction. In that case you'r just just paying for the energy you're putting into people's homes, you're paying for the huge levels of energy youre wasting as well. This increases the price/ KWhr.
Also, what happens to clean energy projects if we go nuclear? They go obsolete. That sector is apparently growing at 25% per year according to Eamonn Ryan.

With wind power, which is grossly underused here, we don't have that problem. You can build wind turbines to cheaply accomodate local population centres and minimise loss, so as to maximise efficiency. Maximum efficiency ought to be the priority.

I'm not anti-nuclear energy by any means whatsoever, and I think that even with the above difficulties, we should never rule out nuclear energy for ourselves. The Government (and the opposition it has to be said) with their schoolgirl screeching and squirmish reaction at the suggestion of installing nuclear power, is an embarrasment. If it wasn't for wind energy I'd be saying that we should be building reactors. It's just that we're quite lucky in that it seems for now that wind energy suits us better.

This isn't the case in places like Iran where the population actually makes nuclear power look attractive, as well as the obvious economic benefits of being able to sell off expensive hydrocarbons while still developing your domestic infrastructure. It's the cheapest and best option for them, but probably not for us.

Judt

InFront wrote:

It's fine to say that it shouldn't have nuclear power, as long as you realise that your opinion doesn't really have any legal basis. You like to use the word realpolitik quite a lot, but "Shouldn't" doesn't matter one tiny bit.

You're right. The basis of maintaining this opinion is that the west has more guns than Iran. Simple, uncivilised, but just the way it is.

Manic Moran

Considering that the geographical distances involved in transporting electricity from one place (even the coast) to everywhere else, I wonder why it doesn't seem to be an issue for larger countries: My power comes primarily from a nuclear station over a hundred miles down the coast. I'm not arguing that you're wrong, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to make comparative sense.

NTM

InFront

But as I said, this is a question of scale and resources. They have the scale for nuclear technology, they tend not to have our level of resources. We're as rich in wind as some ME countries are in oil, but ours isn't running out. We're a small country, if we were to be powered by nuclear energy it might be wasteful and clumsy and expensive - certainly at this moment wind energy is looking like the way to go, we have plenty of it.
The ESBI say we could theoretically pay for our current energy use 20 times over with windpower alone.

All that I'm saying is that wind sounds better than uranium at the moment, I'm certainly not an anti-nuclear sort of person. Nuclear physics is one of the most exciting technologies of the past 100 years, and on a worldwide scale, nuclear fuel is the most promising energy source for the future. It's poor reputation is undeserved, but there is evidence that it is now changing. Nuclear technology is a great thing - for Iran and for most countries. It could be great for Ireland too, but it might not be the best, that's all. Having said that, we shouldn't rule it out.

marco murphy

Whats the bets on what was in that space rocket?

bk

InFront wrote:

No it's nothing to do with the means of generating the power, it's about nuclear setup being unsuitable on the scale of the Irish grid. We're a small country here and our energy needs don't exactly fit nuclear power. One plant would satisfy the demand, that has a few important technical implications.

No it wouldn't, Ireland uses about 6,500MW of power during the winter peak. You could easily build 7 x 1,000MW plants around the country.

This would evenly distribute the power around the country, avoiding the distribution problem you mentioned.

You would be generating 7,000MW of power, so if one goes down, you still have the others as backup, export whatever extra power you generate to the UK. Likewise important power if two plants go down and also have Inniscara dam and one or two gas burning plants as offline backups.

BTW Dams and gas burning plants can quickly and easily be spun up, so they are good backups to Nuclear.

And all of this is before you look at new smaller reactor designs that produce only 600 - 700MW, equivalent to most standard Irish power plants.

This thing about Ireland not being suitable for Nuclear power is simply a myth spread by anti-nuclear types. The chairman of the ESB has said it would not only be feasible in Ireland and it would actually be very attractive.

InFront wrote:

With wind power, which is grossly underused here, we don't have that problem. You can build wind turbines to cheaply accomodate local population centres and minimise loss, so as to maximise efficiency. Maximum efficiency ought to be the priority.

As an environmentalist, I wish this was true, but it simply isn't. Wind power is expensive and it is very erratic and unstable for obvious reasons. For this reason it will never produce more then 10 - 20% of our power needs.

InFront wrote:

This isn't the case in places like Iran where the population actually makes nuclear power look attractive, as well as the obvious economic benefits of being able to sell off expensive hydrocarbons while still developing your domestic infrastructure. It's the cheapest and best option for them, but probably not for us.

I'm sorry that is just funny, it is suitable for a country with some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world, but not for a country with little or no reserves!!!

I'm sorry, Iran wants Nuclear power to build nukes, plain and simple.

InFront

bk wrote:

No it wouldn't, Ireland uses about 6,500MW of power during the winter peak. You could easily build 7 x 1,000MW plants around the country.

This would evenly distribute the power around the country, avoiding the distribution problem you mentioned.

You would be generating 7,000MW of power, so if one goes down, you still have the others as backup, export whatever extra power you generate to the UK.

You are in danger of oversimplifying the case with that, in fact you would need more than one back up plant, and also you would require them to all to be running at all times, that's quite expensive, and what reaction do you think that all of those communities would have to nuclear reactors in their backyard?
This is Ireland, unfortunately things like this would probably get ambushed by the likes of Liveline Housewives imagining the Chernobyl beyond the kitchen sink, it would be political suicide at this stage.
I think you'd have to make the energy source much more centralised too, there's no way you'd even get seven communities to give it the okay, they're already kicking up about wind turbines.

This thing about Ireland not being suitable for Nuclear power is simply a myth spread by anti-nuclear types.

I'm not anti-nuclear in any way whatsoever. Neither have I said nuclear power is unsuitable, I said I thought it was technically unattractive with the lie of the land and the electricity distribution compared to wind generation. We are the least densely populated country in Europe.

I am not going to get into an anti-nuclear debate, because I am in favour of nuclear power. Nuclear Power is nothing to be apprehensive about. But before we go nuclear, we should be certain that wind generation is not the better option, because we happen to have wind in natural abundance. If it isn't bettr, and as you correctly say it is itself problematic, then obviously uranium it will be.

The chairman of the ESB has said it would not only be feasible in Ireland and it would actually be very attractive.

But I'm not saying it isn't feasible, I'm questioning if it's more attractive than wind power.

As an environmentalist, I wish this was true, but it simply isn't. Wind power is expensive and it is very erratic and unstable for obvious reasons. For this reason it will never produce more then 10 - 20% of our power needs.

It's great to see an environmentalist type come out in favour of nuclear energy, it's a pity there are so few of you.

Just one question, why do you say it could only be 10 - 20%? We have some of the best wind resources in the world, and many other countries have reached much higher percentages than we have.
The thing about wind is not really that at all, the problem is that wind can indeed be expensive

I'm sorry that is just funny, it is suitable for a country with some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world, but not for a country with little or no reserves!!!

For the last time bk, I do not think it is "unsuitable".

I'm sorry, Iran wants Nuclear power to build nukes, plain and simple.

No need to be so apologetic per se, but why do you not believe this doesn't benefit their economy?

Victor

bk wrote:

Yes the straits could certainly pose a problem, Iran would likely be able to control them for about 3 to 4 weeks, cutting off oil shipments through them and the resulting increase in oil prices, but it wouldn't be a war winning move. The straits are no longer vital to US military moves there, blocking the straits wouldn't stop US tank's streaming in from Iraq, Afghanistan, (maybe even Turkey) and said Tank forces would easily move down the coast and knock out the Iranian missiles positions along the coast, opening the straits back up.

And how will these American tanks manouver through the mountains? What with mountainous terrain being known to be difficult for tanks to manouver through?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_country_profile_2004.jpg [caution large image]

RedPlanet

Judt wrote:

"They're putting up weather satellites." Yep. And those missiles are also the basis of ICBM's..

They are probably responding to US provocation.
How would you like it if an unfriendly country that wishes you ill will, started building up naval forces just off your boundaries?

Judt

RedPlanet wrote:

They are probably responding to US provocation.
How would you like it if an unfriendly country that wishes you ill will, started building up naval forces just off your boundaries?

Err, they started it. We're talking about Nuclear Weapons here, and ICBM's. Do you know what an ICBM is? It's a missile fired into orbit, which then comes down just about anywhere in the world with tremendous speed, wiping cities off the map anywhere in the world. We're not talking about some fictional WMD's here, Iraq never fired a goddamn intercontinental missile into space while flouting its nuclear program. Sure the US is calling wolf, but this time the wolf is shooting over our heads!