Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the let-the-good-times-roll dept.

Power 496

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."

cancel ×

496 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (4, Interesting)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#33330968)

What has Iran ever done to us

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (4, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#33330992)

Offhand, there was that whole thing with the hostages in the embassy back in the 80s. That's all I got.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (5, Insightful)

hoshino (790390) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331064)

An embassy which was run basically as a CIA safe house plotting to sabotage the Iranian government. Citation: Legacy of Ashes [amazon.com]

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (5, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331090)

Also, there was the removal of a Democratic Iranian Government by the US to install the Shah.

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.

MOD PARENT UP !!!!!! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331216)

"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.

Re:MOD PARENT UP !!!!!! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331328)

"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.

Yes, the world would be different. It is a pity that you've lost the context of why these interventions occurred. It is no secret that the Soviet Union was actively destabilizing and/or annexing nearby countries. This started under Stalin before the US even tried to intervene or push back. The US policy in Iran, Cuba, and other places was hamfisted, there is no doubt. But the strategy was containment and it worked. While the Soviet Union continued to destabilize countries until its dissolution, the rate of destabilization rapidly decreased from the 60s onwards. The installation of puppet governments and outright annexations also decreased.

I don't know if you are arguing against (or even acknowledging) the US policy of containment or whether you think that the US should have been smarter and less abusive during the implementation of containment. The former case would be foolhardy since the Soviet Union needed puppet governments that they could rob to keep their economy going. Soviet expansion would have continued until another World War broke out. The latter case is an understandable argument, but it really doesn't do us any good now (and it is just Monday morning quarterbacking).

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (2, Insightful)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331254)

"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." And a lot more people would be speaking Japanese or German or Russian.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (2, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331318)

Bullshit. Defending yourself is a completely different scenario.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331332)

I believe the point was to leave other countries alone to deal with their own internal problems, rather than acting like big brother to the whole world.

Uh nope. You got your war history wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331354)

Uh nope. You got your war history wrong. Without US involvement in Europe, the world would not have been operating with the US dollar as the international currency.

Since Japan wanted US owned territories, many current USians would be speaking japanese (Remember Pearl Harbour).

But most of the grunt work was done by Russia. Canadian and displaced european forces were more numerous (and D Day for the americans went so badly because they didn't think they needed support from the British Navy guns in the landings) and the war may have delayed a year without USA involvement, but most of Europe would still have been Europe and not Germany.

And the reason why we weren't all speaking russian is because the COLD WAR had the US and USSR pissing all over the place going "mine!". Just after WWII the russians had lost huge numbers of men and materials and would not have been able to invade any more countries.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (0, Troll)

SirRedTooth (1785808) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331268)

If i had mod points right now I would mod you up

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331152)

Im guessing the fact that the US (and the UK) had kept a brutal dictator in power in Iran for several decades prior to that, plus the fact that the US were punishing Iranians for overthrowing said dictator (freezing Iranian assets in the US) had nothing to do with the hostage crisis...

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331260)

Im guessing the fact that the US (and the UK) had kept a brutal dictator in power in Iran for several decades prior to that,

As well as having put him in power in the first place. Iran being one of several countries where the US destroyed democratic governments in the latter half of the 20th century.

plus the fact that the US were punishing Iranians for overthrowing said dictator (freezing Iranian assets in the US) had nothing to do with the hostage crisis...

There's also the issue of how many of the people held hostage were those you'd expect to find in a diplomatic mission.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (3, Interesting)

siwelwerd (869956) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331192)

That may have had just a little bit to do with us overthrowing their democratically elected government and installing a dictator of our choosing.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (2, Interesting)

mrops (927562) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331362)

I am honestly hoping
A) Iran is not as stupid as I hear in the media, however they keep their scary/crazy image.
B) Iran gets nukes in the next few years

A & B is the only way I see Israel sticking to UN resolution, stop their illegal settlements, stop their abuse and even the end of Hamas.

Israel is not going to comply to UN demands with slap on the wrist it gets. It needs a regional power willing to fight for the other side instead of sticks and stones vs multimillion dollar weaponry.

Having said that, I see balance of power between restored between Israel/Iran, however I can see Saudi's wanting nuke next, as the balance of power is severely lop sided there (except US may assure saudi's they are there for them.

Nonetheless, IMO its going to be for better.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331434)


Iran is not the crazy state that you hear about in the media. You can pretty much discount much of the mainstream media for actual assessments. For better analysis you want to read the financial news or paid risk analysis groups like Stratfor [stratfor.com] whose customers aren't after entertainment but actual assessments for their business and therefore have a critical incentive to deliver accurate information.

Doesn't mean we wont see military action however. Israel has a tactical advantage in being thought willing to make a unilateral strike against Iran, so whether or not they are, or whether they are merely bluffing, we cannot know. We can know that the US government considers it a real risk however, due to the frantic running around they've done trying to defuse the situation, sign up countries to support non-military options such as sanctions, trying to negotiate extra time in place of Israel's demands and, tellingly, media blitzes on how dastardly Iran is just in case they really do get sucked into a war by Israel.

It really does seem that only a balance of military power will reign in Israel's behaviour. Which is a terrible inditement of the Israeli government. The main concern is that Israel may attempt to prevent this happening.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (3, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331006)

They, along with Syria, are (allegedly) a major source of funding and weapons for Hezballah. So Israel cares, which makes the US Government care. But I really don't give a shit. If they're powering their country with nukes, then they can burn less oil, which means more can be available on the market. It's simple Scarface economics -- "don't get high off your own supply."

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (2, Informative)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331096)

They, along with Syria, are (allegedly) a major source of funding and weapons for Hezballah

According to Noam Chomsky Israel was also a supporter of a similar group called Hamas in its early days. This was to combat fatah. What's going on here is the polity don't really care about who they support as long as it furthers their aims.
Our polity views conflict as an opportunity to be exploited. An example would be Turkey, in 1996 there was an assault on Kurdish communities in the south. 30000 villages were bombed and there were 1 million refugees. The American government responded by making Turkey the number one country to receive US aid, war is profitable. This is not an isolated incident if your an ally them your crimes are hidden. Saudi Arabia is like Iran a middle eastern theocratic state with human rights issues and [even greater] involvement in international affairs (particularly in the Muslim world). Why are Iran sanctioned and not Saudi, is it just oil. Look at Syria and Jordan both are next to each other (Arabs call this region the Sham because of cultural similarities between their Arabs who live there) both are secular states, both are oppressive regimes, one is on the terror list the other is ignored by the media and given aid.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331430)

I can't understand why people mention that Israel supported Hamas as if it's an excuse for Iran's behaviour today. Talk about a logical fallacy...

Yes, Israel supported Hamas - very briefly, during Hamas's founding, as a more moderate alternative to Fatah, who back then were commiting suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks like Hamas has done in recent years. In short, Israel - again, very briefly - supported Hamas due to not having a crystal ball and seeing their true aims - call it stupidity, even.

But that has nothing to do with why Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran supports these groups knowing fully what their mission is. Iran supports these groups knowing that their aim is to kill innocent people. Iran also knows that they are listed as terrorist groups by the EU and US. Iran isn't supporting them due to stupidity like Israel, it's due to sheer hatred and their wish to see innocent people die.

Fuck Iran.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

mrops (927562) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331378)

Since this is the land of the free, here are my 2 cents

Robin Hood is good, Hezbollah is bad. Masses are so lame, they believe what they are fed. There is no room for rebels rising against a corrupt power anymore.

Hamas and Hezbollah are nothing more than modern day Robin Hood.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331402)

It's simple Scarface economics...

That's appropriate for today's announcement of Iran's new bombing drones.
Ahmadinejad: Say hello to my little friend...

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331010)

Who is "us"?

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331126)

The US but the UK works closely with the US and collaborates on any issues such as coups in former colonies, ditto France.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331048)

Well they arrested some US soldiers that were bouncing around in their coastal waters and then, er, gave them back a few days later after questioning.

Okay, seriously? They've not done anything much, it's that they exist. First off, they're too big to easily threaten and they also have means of responding - for example, they could seal the Strait of Hormuz which would majorly fuck up the US's oil supplies. Secondly, unless Russia helps out, you can't impose serious sanctions on them. End result: A country that doesn't have to do what you tell it to. And that's a big problem when you want to dominate the area. For example, Iran is primarily Shiite. So is a large proportion of the population of Iraq which is next door. Therefore it is natural for the nation of Iraq to form close ties with Iran. For another example, Israel has a policy of being the baddest bastards in their region and being able to threaten everyone else as their security policy. Again, Iran is large, powerful and getting better equipped every day. If Russia ever agrees to sell them modern air-defence weapons, then Israel's ability to bomb the fuck out of the country is severely diminished. If they ever get a nuclear weapon, then Israel will have to treat them as a military equal.

Basically, Iran is a "big kid". And that's a problem for the other "big kid" in the playground which is the US-Israelli bloc. The latter want to dominate the area, but so long as there's someone who isn't easy to push around, then the littler kids have someone they can maybe hide behind or try to become friends with. The US and Israel want themselves to be the only game in town. Iran, unless it can be kept down, means that there's another.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331184)

For example, Iran is primarily Shiite. So is a large proportion of the population of Iraq which is next door. Therefore it is natural for the nation of Iraq to form close ties with Iran.

Heh, Iran and Iraq was at war for 8 years in the 1980s including chemical warfare. Saddam was no friend of Iran either, for as long as he was in power. They're both muslims like most of the Middle East but I don't think they're all that close. Ahmadinejad seems like the last with any real military ambition, which is what makes him scary. Oh there's dictatorships other places but they seem mostly content with ruling their own little patch of land. And him alone I wouldn't worry much about either, what I do fear is if he manages to trigger some sort of christian-muslim war instead of just Iraq vs Israel or whatever.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331274)

Heh, Iran and Iraq was at war for 8 years in the 1980s including chemical warfare. Saddam was no friend of Iran either, for as long as he was in power.

Saddam was no friend of the Iraqi people either. Remember that though the government was secular, there was still a general state of Sunni domination over the Shiite majority (+Kurds). You'd better believe that the Iraqi people today are more inclined to side with Iran than the US. The Sunnis not so much, but the Shiite, yes. I'm not saying the countries are going to merge or anything stupid like that, but Iran is a more natural ally to Iraq (culture, strategic aims, geographical proximity) than the US is (different culture, wrecked your country, helped set up the previous dictator, sold you out during the Kuwait war, threatens your popular leaders, forces your government to sign hugely partial oil-export deals, occupies the country militarily, forces its laws upon you, forbids local companies and workers from bidding on contracts to re-build their own country, the list goes on...). Nah, the big fear of the US during the post-war occupation was that Iraq would lean toward a close relationship with Iran.

And him alone I wouldn't worry much about either, what I do fear is if he manages to trigger some sort of christian-muslim war instead of just Iraq vs Israel or whatever.

The vast majority of muslims (remember there are about 2 billion world wide) just want to get on with their lives the same as everybody else. Whatever religious rhetoric gets thrown about, war or peace will happen based on real-world cost-benefit. Israel is the elephant in the china shop and if they get involved... it will result in a huge amount of death and misery for the whole region.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (5, Insightful)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331346)

Unfortunately when the Ottoman Empire collapsed the West redrew the map of the Middle East without much attention being paid to ethnic or religious divides. Iraq under the Ba'athist was dominated to an extent by the Sunni minority. The regions bordering Iran are majority Shi'ite. With the fall of Saddam's Ba'athist regime solidarity among Shi'ites complicates matters of security, especially when you consider that during the first Gulf War the allied forces incited a primarily Shi'ite rebellion inside the South of Iraq only to abandon it once Kuwait was liberated.
The West's past conduct hasn't exactly endeared us to the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq, and Iran is certainly a natural ally after all we screwed them over as well by installing the Shah and generally interfering where we weren't wanted. The whole situation is a messy series of botch-ups by everyone involved.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

dupup (784652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331422)

For example, Iran is primarily Shiite. So is a large proportion of the population of Iraq which is next door. Therefore it is natural for the nation of Iraq to form close ties with Iran.

Heh, Iran and Iraq was at war for 8 years in the 1980s including chemical warfare. Saddam was no friend of Iran either, for as long as he was in power.

Yeah, both Muslims, but different flavors. Saddam and his crew were Sunni despite the fact that Iraq is majority Shiite. Now that he's gone, the government in Iraq, when it finally emerges, will likely by Shiite, reflecting the majority of the Iraq population. The natural assumption is that Iraq and Iran will strengthen ties.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

mutube (981006) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331352)

For example, Iran is primarily Shiite.

Come on, they're not that bad

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331108)

What has Iran ever done to us

      Read some history.

      While US foreign policy is far from perfect, Iran certainly has blood on its hands too. Playing innocent won't fool anyone. Let's start with the storming of the US embassy and hostage taking, and go from there, shall we?

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331300)

What has Iran ever done to us

Read some history.

Well that answers what the US has done to Iran, but not so much the other way around. Okay...

Let's start with the storming of the US embassy and hostage taking, and go from there, shall we?

Your starting point is the seizing of the US embassy during a revolution when the US had just seized Iranian assets, was supporting the dictator of the country and when there are peristent rumours that the embassy in question was containing rather more than diplomatic staff. Now, as you say, let's go on from there and see what other crimes Iran has perpetuated on the US people. The floor is yours...

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331350)

Let's start with the storming of the US embassy and hostage taking, and go from there, shall we?

Why start there is it because the past makes Irans acts seem more reasonable. Why can we not look at interactions put them in a time line and see the train of events. This clearly is better than making arbitrary cut off points. Besides are you sure The US would come out the most wronged party even if we accepted your arbitrary cut of date, what was their role in the Iraq Iran war
It's obvious from my comments how I view Iran and other middle eastern states, oppression is oppression. But you know there is one problem all people seem to have with the actions of others viewed as a serious breach of acceptable behaviour. Your own misdeeds are viewed differently. This can be detected as soon as you here the terms "that's different" or "you don't understand" when comparing similar actions. There is also a counter argument that goes "that's our culture" made by the other which is simply the "you don't understand" argument in a foreign language.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (3, Insightful)

BangaIorean (1848966) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331128)

They keep threatening to wipe an entire country off the map. And that country happens to be an American ally. Moreover, they're ruled by nutjobs and mad mullahs who keep saying things like "South Koreans should be slapped till they become human", "Australians are a bunch of cow herders", and so on. These are official statements from the Iranian regime, remember. The regime is seriously insane and unstable. And yeah - they keep passing sentences to have people stoned to death even today.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (-1, Flamebait)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331156)

They keep threatening to wipe an entire country off the map.

Huh, sounds familiar.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331296)

It's not what Ahmedinejad says that is worrysome. It's what he doesn't say: that the nuclear capabilities of Iran are a direct threat to some Sunni regimes in their environment. The Shia-Sunni angle is too often forgotten, but it is the main motivator for Iran's leaders (which Ahmedinejad is not necessarily).

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (0)

asadsalm (647013) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331304)

Huh? This is an insightful comment? Meta Moderators, where are you?

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331458)

They keep threatening to wipe an entire country off the map

- while they are only threatening, the US HAS DONE SO.

US has wiped a country off a map, it was called Iraq. You can argue all you want about Saddam being a terrible person, but during Saddam, Iraq HAD ELECTRICAL POWER. Which is insanely important if you live in that EXTREMELY HOT part of the world.

You don't understand HOW HOT, it's not Texas or Alabama or Arizona, or Mexico, it is FUCKING hot. Iraq had people EMPLOYED. Nobody was EXPLODING BOMBS in markets during the day.

Now people are out of job, bombs are exploding almost daily, people are dying ALL THE TIME. There IS no electrical power, no matter what the US tells you right now, that Iraq has more MW output than it had during Saddam, this output is NOT making it to any actual apartments. The infrastructure is destroyed, no WIRES, OK?

AFAIC USA HAS DESTROYED IRAQ.

So you know what? USA should SHUT THE FUCK UP about Iran 'threatening' anybody, USA has done much much much worse, it ACTUALLY DESTROYED a country.

Anybody without nuclear weapons that has any resources USA is interested in is in danger and should acquire all the military power they can and should unite against the actual aggressor, which United States has shown to be over and over and over and over. It's just a fact.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (2, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331136)

Their real crime was overthrowing the CIA asset [wikipedia.org] who was running the country on behalf of the US. That and living on top of a substantial oil reserve.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331172)

Iran is a country of great people run by douchebags. We should be encouraging Iranian citizens to peacefully but emphatically toss those bums out and elect a REAL representative government. We should not be undermining efforts to do so as that pussy Obammy did in his first days in office.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331448)

America is a country of great people run by douchebags. We should be encouraging American citizens to peacefully but emphatically toss those bums out and elect a REAL representative government.

YOU FAIL IT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331174)

Israel and USA, that is...

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (2, Insightful)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331218)

A more pertinent question would be to ask what the US did to Iran. And the answer was that the USA killed off Iran's fledgling democracy in 1953 and thus secured a never ending period of hate and distrust.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331234)

What has Iran ever done to us

They have oil. And they are not Christians.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (0, Offtopic)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331236)

wow modded troll! Please someone tell me why!

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331248)

(-1, Traitor) doesn't exist...

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331324)

Because people who know very little of actual history and swallow US centric propaganda in its place have mod points.
Many people don't know or just deny the circumstances and events which have lead to most of the political problems between Iran and the west.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331392)

They have supported terrorist organizations in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Israel.

They have threatened to wipe our ally Israel off the map.

Their goal is almost the same as the taliban: Uniting the world under islam, imposing harsh sharia law on all people, concentrating all wealth and power in the hands of a few corrupt clerics/imams, and the conversion or extermination of all non believers. The only difference is that the taliban also wants to wipe out all scientific knowledge as well, while Iran is willing to use that knowledge toward its goals.

Re:Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331450)

to you - nothing. but u are not the US government. The US government is completely separate from the US people, more so than any other country. They have their own agenda..
There is no "us" in their minds, at least not the "us" you're thinking of!!

Yeah right (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33330974)

It's not a nuclear plant. It's just a bunch of camels running on treadmills.

Re:Yeah right (2, Informative)

omidaladini (940882) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331088)

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.

They know the script... (4, Insightful)

arcite (661011) | more than 4 years ago | (#33330976)

Get nuclear weapons and the USA will not only leave you alone, they will give you AID money by the billions, initiate free trade deals, and otherwise try to be your best friend.

M.A.D. for a safer world! Today!

Re:They know the script... (2, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331198)

The US have said they don't see this nuclear plant as a proliferation risk. We should be for this thing, because if they can get nuclear power and it doesn't help them get nuclear weapons that removes any reason for Ahmedinejad to enrich

Nope (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33330986)

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.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331018)

Plus isn't this "state of the art" plant something the Russians started building for them almost 40 years ago?

So its a big ass junk heap, hopefully its not the same design as Chernobyl.

Re:Nope (5, Informative)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331120)

Plus isn't this "state of the art" plant something the Russians started building for them almost 40 years ago?
So its a big ass junk heap, hopefully its not the same design as Chernobyl.

Germans started it. Some country a little bit closer to US than Russia.

Bushehr should have three VVER-1000/446 type reactors. Pressurized water reactor. Negative void coefficient
Chernobyl had four RBMK-1000. Same power, but graphite-moderated reactor. Positive void coefficient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient

Although considering that reactor was built by three different contractors for over 45 years, it is still German/Iranian/Russian junk heap.

Re:Nope (2, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331054)

It's a plant in Iran also operated by many Iranians. How about for example siphoning off a little material and blame it on reactor inefficiency? 3% enriched uranium isn't exactly a commodity good, if they get a weapons program going they could secretly have a lot more nukes than anyone expects. So risk-free is probably exaggerating.

Re:Nope (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331170)

"Reactor inefficiencies" for missing fuel would be kind of a laughable excuse. Every measurement and process has to be monitored in minute detail simply for safety - if the plant is operated by Russians, then it would be impossible to interfere with its operation that heavily without someone noticing oddities.

Re:Nope (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331188)

I have a suggestion to the US of A: do not start another war in the Middle East.

AFAIC Iran has every right to possess nuclear weapons, it is a much better deterrent against an invasion than harsh language that Saddam used. If US attacks Iran, it deserves its troops to be nuked, of-course Iran would also be turned into ashes, with ICBMs by US, but maybe Iran having nukes would actually PREVENT a new war by US, not invite it.

Anybody with any resources today that US is interested in, that does not have nuclear capability is a sitting target for the US.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331290)

Iran *had* a right to develop nuclear weapons, which they voluntarily surrendered when they signed the non-proliferation treaty. In return for this they got a promise that *we* would help develop civilian nuclear power.

Re:Nope (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331380)

They signed the treaty under pressure, same thing as when someone gets arrested and a "confession" is then beat out of them.

There are no rules in love and war, and in place of Iran I wouldn't TRUST ANYTHING that is signed by USA and I would still pursue every possible way of getting as many weapons as possible, it's in their best interest to do so if they want to SURVIVE, because US will not stop at Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:Nope (5, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331190)

Not likely.

To siphon off some uranium you'll need to disassemble 'hot' fuel rods, chemically separate uranium, and then reassemble rods again. It's unlikely Russians won't notice that a lot of their rods are missing. It's far easier for Iran to use existing uranium enrichment facilities.

Besides, this reactor is a light-water type. It can never be used to breed plutonium.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331364)

It's unlikely Russians won't notice that a lot of their rods are missing.

For a right price, they might. And no, I'm not talking of dollars. Destabilising US dominance over Middle East by letting Iran get nukes is russian's wet dream anyway.

Re:Nope (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331230)

3% enriched uranium isn't much help and it's nothing they don't already have. They need to enrich it much more anyway and they have their own uranium mines..

Keeping a close eye is fine but going over the top doesn't help anyone; it makes demands to stop the genuinely threatening behavior less credible.

Re:Nope (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331320)

"reactor inefficiency" was done by South Africa when they told the world about their nuclear bomb building. They could not account for some material, but over time, it was accepted the books where in order.
Iran has an old Russian plant, with Russians on site. If you want to have a dual use reactor the only people you want on site is your own or allies with tech help.

Re:Nope (2, Interesting)

GiveBenADollar (1722738) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331244)

While the plant does use low enrichment uranium, it produces among other things plutonium. And although not a breeder reactor to my knowledge, it still should produce enough plutonium every fuel cycle to make several bombs. Uranium enrichment to produce nuclear weapons is very difficult, plutonium extraction isn't. So all that is left of your argument is the Russian security over the fuel. If we were making this kind of deal with one of our allies would we be preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons or would we covertly be helping them?

I do find this news worrisome but they still have a ways to go before they actually have nuclear weapons and every step of the way can be thwarted either by covert action or by their own mistakes. Radiated fuel is not fun stuff to play with, and that alone will hopefully be enough of a deterrent.

Re:Nope (2, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331280)

Nobody is concerned about the FUEL for these reactors. Everyone and their dog (well, only the Saudis, generally all the Sunni states, the Europeans, Israel and the USA) worry about the possibility to produce Plutonium 239 from the spent fuel.

Uuuuh they've started loading fuel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33330998)

Guess we're gonna get a global heads-up when they finish loading fuel, when they flick the switch, when it has run for a day, a week, a month and a year.

Call me when they've built a nuke and launch it at Israel in a religious hissy-fit.

Don't know what to say... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331024)

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... [youtube.com]
I don't know what to say.

Re:Don't know what to say... (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331102)

I couldn't get away ...

Re:Don't know what to say... (1)

omidaladini (940882) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331116)

They claim they have no gays... [youtube.com]

'He' claims.

Re:Don't know what to say... (1)

briniel (916290) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331386)

Iwalked

No one's made the comment yet.... (0, Offtopic)

Raxxon (6291) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331038)

Another 210 MWatt at max and they could go back to 1955!

Re:No one's made the comment yet.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331292)

1.21 niggawatts and you could extend your peen by 1cm

Let's see (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331056)

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.

Re:Let's see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331080)

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.

Maybe, perhaps, it's because every time their leader opens his mouth he mentions wiping a nearby country off the map. We couldn't say we weren't warned.

Re:Let's see (5, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331160)

he mentions wiping a nearby country off the map.

      I see you're going for the exaggerated sensationalist translation, rather than the factually correct one "this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

      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.

Mod this up. (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331196)

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

Re:Let's see (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331394)

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).

And this is what happens when you reduce everything to generalities. Iran speaks of wiping out a nation. America talks about replacing leaders. Ahmadinejad is not looking to put a different set of Jews in power in Israel. You use one quote for your straw-man reply. Why not compile a list of speeches by top Iranian officials and see just how far they're willing to go.

Re:Let's see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331166)

He never said that. The idiom doesn't exist in farsi, he couldn't have said it, you're just a victim of fearmongering preparing for war against Iran.

Re:Let's see (1)

marlinSpike (894812) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331168)

Oh, and that 'other' country isn't just as provocative by openly planning bombing raids, not to mention turning a nearby nation into a massive prison camp? Of course, the best part of it all is that the 'other' country already fucking has nuclear weapons! Wake up Sheeple!

Re:Let's see (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331154)

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.

Let's see. half a million a day. About $185 million a year.

Cost of the plant - more than 3 billion euros. Call if $4 billion.

What interest do Iranian bonds pay? 1%? Less? More? Let's assume 1% for grins. Which adds up to about 25 years to pay back the cost of the plant.

Well, it'll be paid back that quickly if there are no operating costs, or refueling costs, or anything like that...

Hardly my definition of "it doesn't take long before a plant like this pays for itself".....

Re:Let's see (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331206)

Hardly my definition of "it doesn't take long before a plant like this pays for itself".....

You're forgetting to include 500MW of electricity they didn't have before. Electricity that will be a) sold to pay for the plant and b) will permit economic growth. If you're going to analyze the whole picture, you have to consider everything.

I was just mentioning that this electricity is not being obtained by burning oil, allowing them to export more oil than if they had built a 500MW oil burning plant. This "savings" is a "bonus" for choosing nuclear over oil. All other things being equal, an oil burning plant would have had to be paid for too - they're not free.

Re:Let's see (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331372)

Or if its not all used for export ect they can put the oil to good use internally for refining. The nuclear plant really helps them a lot anyway you do the maths, for own use, export or power generation.

Remain Calm! (3, Insightful)

ovanklot (715633) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331070)

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!

Re:Remain Calm! (2, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331124)

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.

The UN is Codependent - they get off on it.

Re:Remain Calm! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331150)

All of that shit and more could be applied to the USA as well. Ever wonder why most of the world hates the USA? It's because of this righteous attitude and the belief that they can control every country in the world.

Re:Remain Calm! (1, Insightful)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331158)

So, basically, what you are saying here is that you are incredibly easy to manipulate with standard media techniques.

Were you also one of those zombie imbeciles waving a flag as we invaded Iraq?

Or are you the worst kind of all; the sort who still refuses to acknowledge that we were lied to?

Did you miss the last 8 years of bullshit? Have you learned nothing about government lies?

Are you under 18 or just retarded?

-FL

Re:Remain Calm! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331444)

Look at the way the majority of the posts have been modded... it is kind of sad that so many people with mod points are uninformed or just bullshit swallowing flag wavers, regardless of the facts.

Re:Remain Calm! (1)

nloop (665733) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331384)

After hundreds of chemical weapon attacks were levied on them in the 1980s they retaliated by telling an international community who didn't care. They did not respond by attacking civilians or using chemical weapons. What loons.

Air strike would be folly (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331078)

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.

Re:Air strike would be folly (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331146)


Don't disagree with the gist of your argument, but just want to say that the Russians aren't going to sell Iran nuclear warheads. That's too big and gives up Russia's powerful bargaining position in the area. What Russia has threatened to do and which Iran would love, is for Russia to sell them some modern anti-aircraft defence systems. Right now, Israel can credibly threaten to bomb Iran (and has threatened). If Russia follows through and sells them modern systems then Israels ability to threaten is somewhat reduced.

Re:Air strike would be folly (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331322)

"Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons,"

Canada has absolutely no need for combat forces of any type whatsoever. Its situation is unique. It has no important international relationships and is completely protected by the US due to its location.

Canada's military exists so it can pretend it matters to the United Nations. Not a bad thing, but hardly necessary.

Re:Air strike would be folly (1)

ian_from_brisbane (596121) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331428)

If the strike put a radioactive plum in the air that drifted over part of China or India, that would be worse.

Those flying radioactive plums are never good news.

Total BS (4, Insightful)

helbent (1244274) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331132)

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.

Re:Total BS (1)

GiveBenADollar (1722738) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331326)

You can most certainly use weapons grade uranium in a reactor. The Navy does it right now, that's how they have 20 years between refueling. Uranium fuel does easily convert into small amounts of plutonium. All you need is a reactor. A breeder reactor is designed to convert LARGE amounts of uranium into plutonium. Yes there are fear mongerers, but to completely dismiss any fears is just as foolish.

Re:Total BS (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331382)

Yet you never hear two peeps about the “destabilizing influence in the Mideast” of that nuclear bandit state in the press, do you?

Actually, every single time the Iranian nuclear program is mentioned.

Not the kind of plant used for weapons (5, Insightful)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331276)

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.

Radioactive plume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33331284)

So, if the Israelis think that this plant will be used to produce nuclear material for a fission bomb (or a much easier to make "dirty" bomb), they might be tempted to put it (permanently) out of action.

If so, I wonder what would happen if they rupture the containment dome while it is running "full steam". Would there be a Chernobyl type disaster? (Hundreds of thousands evacuated, thousands of sq. kilometers contaminated for decades/centuries). Some have claimed that the costs from Chernobyl caused the bankrupting of the old USSR. Remember that instead of a few measly kg of highly radioactive material in a bomb, a reactor has TONS. (Of course maybe it has to be running for awhile to "cook" the material).

Is this in the Israelis planning? Could they try to pick a time when the plume would go over, say, Tehran?

Remember that the Israelis destroyed an Iraqi reactor in the 80s. Of course it hadn't started operations yet. Maybe the Israelis were afraid the fallout might hit them (but Iran is a bit further away). Of course the diplomatic fallout would be extraordinary but any attack on Iran is going to be condemned so why not achieve your goals of preventing them from getting nukes AND crippling their entire country at the same time?

Just don't have homer simpson work there! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331302)

Just don't have homer simpson work there!

Why can't Iran have The Bomb? (1, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#33331456)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?