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 To 'Remove Fuel' From Bushehr Nuclear Plant

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the ha-ha-biff-stuxnet-ha-ha-that's-rich dept.

The Military 240

mangu writes "Iran said on Saturday it is removing the fuel from the reactor of a Russian-built nuclear power plant, a move seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program. The plant was first launched by the shah using contractors from Siemens. It was shelved after the Islamic revolution and it lay unfinished through the 1980s. In the early 1990s, Iran sought help for the project after being turned away by Siemens over nuclear proliferation concerns. In 1994, Russia agreed to complete the plant and provide the fuel, with the supply deal committing Iran to returning the spent fuel. The plant has faced hiccups even after its physical launch, with officials blaming the delays in generating electricity on a range of factors, including Bushehr's 'severe weather.' But they deny it was hit by the malicious Stuxent computer worm which struck industrial computers in Iran, although they acknowledge that the personal computers of some personnel at Bushehr were infected with it."

cancel ×

240 comments

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

removing fuel to make a bomb!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327588)

going to divert the fuel to their nuclear weapons program

Re:removing fuel to make a bomb!!! (1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327736)

One time I living in a Los Angeles dormitory and heading down the stairs to relax in the jacuzzi with my 40-ounce bottle of Mickey's Fine Malt Liquor and a weekly reader. Already sitting in the jacuzzi was a young black man with a young black woman sitting and bouncing in his lap with the bottom of her bathing suit pulled to one side.

I said, "hello" to both of them in passing and sat in the jacuzzi with them, sprawling out my weekly reader and cracking open my 40 of Mickey's. Note that they were sitting opposite to me but both facing inward towards the center of the jacuzzi while I was facing outward towards my reader and 40 on the deck. I felt the subtle waves from her bouncing but paid no mind as I drank my 40 and continued to read my reader. I repeatedly urinated silently into the jacuzzi, not considering that the wet mandala was rapidly becoming a cesspool of urine and god knows whatever else. Being oblivious but polite, I turned around and looked them both in the eye and extended my forty-in-hand before asking them if they wanted a sip. Both of them said, "No thanks" before I turned back around to read and drink.

By this time, I had noticed that they were pausing with much more frequency. It wasn't until my third(or fourth?) urination that I noticed that they were both still, grumbling. I was curious but their privacy had to be respected -- and so I sat in silence reading my reader. The man then said, "I don't think we should be doing this here," and the woman was saying something to the effect of, "What's wrong, baby? Is it me?"

They both eventually stepped out of the jacuzzi with frustrated looks on their faces. I guess it is kinda gross to be bathing in one's own urine, but everybody pees in those anyway.

Re:removing fuel to make a bomb!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327918)

LMAO Troll forgot to hit the anon coward box.

Re:removing fuel to make a bomb!!! (1)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328098)

Not that a user number that high is really worth saving...

the plant's new nickname... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327624)

Shah Nukem Forever

What OS was that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327718)

Stuxnet: An object lesson on why you shouldn't run critical infrastructure on Windows.

Re:What OS was that? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328054)

Linux nor BSD nor Windows is 'safe' enough for critical infrastructure.

Re:What OS was that? (3, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328418)

Running a critical machine on a general purpose computer is a terrible idea no matter what OS you have. But it's also extremely common practice.

Why dont they just (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327738)

REMOVE KEBAB

more concerned about israels nukes. (2, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327778)

israel needs to dismantle them and provide a reason for iran to not want them. They cannot have it both ways

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327806)

Do you know how deterrence works?

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327970)

then you understand why iran wants them. If israel has then then you agree iran needs them for a deterrence.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328028)

Hmm, whats more likely Isreal using them, or Iran using them. With akhmadenajad (I know thats spelled wrong but IDC) I'd bet he'd have no issue lobbing a few of them around.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328112)

Well, yes. Deterrence is a two edged sword, and doesn't fit too well with non-proliferation.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328980)

Posting AC because I have mod points...

Um... Israel has had them for decades and has never used them, even when they were being invaded on both ends and their very existence was threatened.

I don't think Iran will be so restrained.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327864)

Israel IS the reason Iran wants nukes*. Iran wants Israel dismantled, not weapons parity.

* well, that and Ahmadinejad is convinced that a nuclear detonation over Israel will bring about whatever the Islamic equivalent of the rapture is. Imagine Fred Phelps with a nuke of his own ...

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327944)

And who told you what Ahmadinejad is convinced about? I guess it's you that is convinced on that because he did not say that.

Besides Ahmadinejad is a president and president does not have say in military. Military is under the direct orders of supreme leader and supreme leader's official position is that Nukes are not allowed (what they call Haram).

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328162)

Haram, huh? I guess that explains their nuke program then.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328340)

The current Supreme Leader is a religious and intellectual lightweight who is only still breathing because he does what the Revolutionary Guard tells him to do. Iran may have functioned the way you describe under Khomeini, but Khamenei is just a puppet, and the Guardian Council has been emasculated. Iran is now a thinly veiled military dictatorship, so Ahmadinejad is probably closer to those calling the shots that Khamenei.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (3, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327876)

Whateverz. Facts: srael has never threatened to destroy Iran and recognizes Iran as a legitimate country. Iran does not recognize Israel as legitimate and *routinely* threatens to "wipe the Zionist Entity from the face of the Earth". Iran with bombs is not a direct danger. There are so many factions within the Iranian government there is a decent chance that if they had nukes that they would make their way to either Hezbollah or Hamas - either of which is crazy enough to use them. This gives 'plaustible deniability' to the Iranians. Better to stop it before it gets to that stage - which is what the rest of the Reasoning World realizes and geopolitical n00bs like you fail to realize.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (-1, Troll)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327968)

Could you give us a reference on your accusation that Iran once (if not ROUTINELY) threaten to wipe out a country? If you mean the mistranslated ONCE said by Ahmadinjead then all your accusations are fake.

By the way, Israel has committed genocide and it is something that Everyone in the world knows about that.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328022)

Mistranslated once? So I guess Holocaust denial doesn't have anything to do with it either? Or was that mistranslated too? The man hates the Jewish people. Are you dumb?

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (3, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328758)

Iran's politics are more complex than most people outside the region realize. Iran's parliament has at least one seat set aside for a Jew (with others set aside for other religious minorities). Ahmadinejad has certain powers, but may always be overruled by either Ayatollah Khamenei or the council that sits between the elected government and Khamenei. He's been put in his place by both at various times, and his position as president is purely by their graces.

It's no utopia for the Persian Jews. One of my former supervisors was from there, having fled with the fall of the shah because there was a strong backlash against the Jews present in several parts of the country. However, she still has (or had a few years ago) a large family there that did quite well.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (5, Insightful)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328064)

New York Times good enough?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html [nytimes.com]

CNN International work?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/ [cnn.com]

Washington Post?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html [washingtonpost.com]

How about the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4384264.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Now what the fuck were you saying again?

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0, Troll)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328188)

I was saying it was a mistranslation.

And about the fuck thing, I never said anything about the fuck. You did.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (4, Informative)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328230)

Please supply a source that it was mis-translated.

No? If you read my sources you will see stuff like this...

BBC...

Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

Hes not claiming he was mistranslated...

Washington post..

Most Arab countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel. But the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said, according to the Associated Press: "We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and . . . we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable."

Are you saying the Palestinians mistranslated him? You'd think they'd be able to get a good translation there.

Your WRONG! He said it, he admits it. The Palestinians even told him he shouldn't have said it.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328330)

And about the fuck thing, I never said anything about the fuck. You did.

I'm not really sure that you are one to be complaining about mistranslations. "Now what the fuck were you saying again?" is a common English idiom.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0, Flamebait)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328360)

In other parts of the world where people are more polite, it is not a common idiom.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328404)

You can substitute "fuck" with just about anything you wish, and it is still a common English idiom. For example:

"Now what in the world were you saying again?"
"Now what the heck were you saying again?"

Or even simply:

"Now what were you saying again?"

All of these have the same meaning, which you seem to have completely missed. The so called 'profanity' is not intended to give offence, merely provide emphasis, and therefore should not be considered an indication of rudeness.

The more you know!

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1, Flamebait)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328468)

Thanks for your lecture, but it is still provocative and impolite to use that word in most parts of the world. You talk that way where I live and you get a punch on your face (not me, but perhaps 70% of the people).

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (2)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328478)

you get a punch on your face

Well, I suppose politeness is in the eye of the beholder.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1, Troll)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328200)

Besides, it is a call to wipe Zionism from the world (which is a very legitimate decent request), not a country.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328242)

So it's reasonable to wipe out a race from the world?

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (2)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328280)

Zionism is not a race, it is an extremist political movement similar to Apartheid.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (2)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328316)

Wrong again:

Source:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=zionism [princeton.edu]

Definitions of zionism on the Web:

        * a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine
        * a movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism [wikipedia.org]

Zionism (Hebrew: , Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. In a less common usage, the term may also refer to 1) non-political, Cultural Zionism, founded and represented most prominently by Ahad Ha'am; and 2) political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews, as in Christian Zionism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Zionism [reference.com]

Zionism (zanzm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

—n
1. a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel
2. a policy or movement for Jews to return to Palestine from the Diaspora

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (-1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328338)

From your own reference: "Zionism (Hebrew: , Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that,..."

One more thing. Please do me a favor and ignore my posts.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328358)

You said it was an *extremist* political movement. Nobody is arguing that it is not a political movement at all.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (2)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328386)

Nothing there says they are an extreme movement similar to apartheid.

I will not ignore your posts while you continue to bullshit. I will show you the sources that prove you are wrong. That way at the very least your lies don't muddy the water.

I'm not saying that Israel has treated the Palestinians fairly, I'm not saying that they haven't been assholes at times. I'm saying that there cannot be an intelligent discussion about the subject if we have lies being thrown around.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1, Offtopic)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328440)

Could you point to my lies then?

Zionism is a political movement (based on your own references). My opinion is that it is an extremnist movement which has has caused uncountable problems in last 50 years.

For the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's speech take a look at Google:

http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=&q=mistranslation+ahmadinejad [google.com.my]

Now what lies did I say?

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328484)

So Zionism is extremist because its your personal opinion? Don't state it as fact, cause without evidence, its a lie.

Cite a reputable source for a mistranslation, or your lying. I showed you how he admits those were his words, I showed you how others that speak the language spoke out against it. Show me something to prove me and my sources wrong, or your a LIAR.

That's the end all be all of it. You refuse to provide any facts to back up your OPINION. See my sig if you need help.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (4, Interesting)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328594)

There are 400,000 links listed in that google query. If you cannot look at them it is your problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_controversy [wikipedia.org]
---
From Wikipedia , section on "Translation controversy"

Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." [15][16][17]

Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]

  Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[19][20][21]
---

It is not just my opinion that Zionism is extremist, at least several hundred millions of people agree with me.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1, Informative)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328660)

Oh you left some stuff out.. like the fact that the original translation came from a official source:

The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

The Islamic Republic News Agency is :

The Islamic Republic News Agency (Persian: ), or IRNA, is the official news agency of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

How did the OFFICIAL IRANIAN NEWS CHANNEL screw that up so badly? If I was a despotic leader, and my minions misquoted me badly enough to almost get my country kicked out of the UN, I think Id be pretty upset. Anyways you don't think erasing from the pages of history sounds pretty threatening?

Or you left of stuff like this:

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:

        [T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

Emphasis mine.

  Go on now go find me a real source.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328350)

Let me guess, you teach "How to lose credibility in online discussions 101" at your local university.

Regardless of what you think about the matter, you don't flat out defend "wiping zionists off the face of the earth". Not if you expect anybody to take you seriously.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1, Redundant)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328416)

I guess you have problem reading my sentences. I defended wiping out ZionisM not Zionists.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (2)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328438)

A mentioned earlier in this discussion by another participant, the two are not distinguishable in any meaningful way.

I won't bore you by repeating the distinction, though I will say that my comment still holds true (you are still making yourself look bad), and I will furthermore argue that you don't use bombs to wipe out political movements. You use bombs to wipe out people.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328472)

And where did the Bomb came from?

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328678)

You either have a very short memory, or your purposefully being obtuse. Scroll to the top of the thread if you must.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328352)

Zionism is Jewish Nationalism, to call that an extremist political movement like Apartheid, is to call Pan-Arabism or Arabism an extremist political movement similar to Apartheid. Or to call the American Indian Movement an extremist political movement similar to Apartheid.

Zionism is not racism and the only way now to eliminate Zionism is to destroy the Jews as a culture and a people.

The knowledge that there are people in the world who think destroying Judaism and Jewish identity is an option is exactly way Israel has nuclear weapons.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328730)

Personally I trust some other sources more than mass media http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025 [antiwar.com] . So it seems, what was reported was not what was said but hey, I am sure what was reported was calculated to sell better than what was actually said.

Back on topic of course, what is interesting is the problem of trying to get a 30 year old design to work, with Russian technology, using in part some German and US technology. Hardly surprising the first effort was not that successful when they started upping the power output to energy generation levels.

It likely would have been simpler to scrap the original plant and start from scratch, than trying to get that thirty year old design to work.

As for the military industrial complex propaganda, war, war, war, kill, kill, kill, we need to buy more shit, with which to blow up shit, so that we need to buy more shit to blow up, and of course WMD, WMD, WMD, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, oh no alien invasion (they propagandists will get there eventually).

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328780)

The translation came from the Iranian state news agency, leaders from around the world decried the quote, he admitted/defended the quote, Palestinians have been quoted as saying he should not have said that. That is enough evidence for most reasonable people to assume that that is at the very least what he meant.

Your source has a obvious slant (not saying it isnt an admirable goal) but that slant is to stop wars. So someone with a obvious stated slant like that does not make them a good source.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328246)

So, when you say you're going to 'take a poop,' should that be translated as 'deficate' or 'steal feces?' No, he didn't literally say that, he said 'erase them from the pages of history,' which doesn't exactly sound friendly either, does it? Face it, a figurative translation was appropriate. Or are idioms and figures of speech also part of the Zionist conspiracy?

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (1, Troll)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327982)

israel is crazy enough to use nukes. better stop them before they do, right?

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328934)

Facts please. When did Israel threaten another country with nukes? They don't even acknowledge they have them. They do say that if Syria attacks them with chemical weapons (a capability Syria is known to have and is ready to use) that there will be "consequences" as a defensive measure. Israel is not perfect, not by a long way, but please recognize your statement doesn't correlate with the known facts. Face it, you are starting from an anti-Israeli position and selectively choose what you would like to believe - rather than trying to see the rights and wrongs that all sides make and *then* seeing what is the path of least badness (which is Iran to not have nukes in this case).

Israel will be the first to use nukes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328074)

....- which is what the rest of the Reasoning World realizes and geopolitical n00bs like you fail to realize.

Really?

The way I see it is that Israel has been stealing Arab land. Now other Muslim countries sees that their "brothers" are being treated unjustly - please, the "settlements" (land theft) are just stirring the pot and NOT adding to Israel's security. The Iranian Government is just talking big and everyone knows that the Arabs don't want them having nukes anymore than the Israelis - thanks to WikiLeaks.

Israel, feeling that the entire World is against them may well believe that they have nothing to lose and use their nukes. That's right, I AM saying that if anyone is going to use their nukes it will be Israel first because of their irrational security.

If Israel pulled back to the 1967 borders, including abandoning their "settlements" and give the Palestinians their own State ( and that would mean the Palestinians getting their act together!), their security would actually improve. Unfortunately, there's a bunch of asshole right wingers over there (the ones who'll call you a NAZI for saying that) who won't be satisfied until they piss off everyone to be secure. Then THEY will use NUKES to "defend themselves". The Ariel Sharon rule - instigate something, say you have to defend yourself, and go to war and exterminate the other side.

Israel CAN have the security they want if they would stopped being assholes and giving the assholes on the other side plenty of reasons to be assholes themselves.

Personally, I would be more than happy of all of those assholes nuked each other.

Let them kill each other and let their God sort it out!

Re:Israel will be the first to use nukes. (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328286)

Personally, I would be more than happy of all of those assholes nuked each other.

Let them kill each other and let their God sort it out!

If/when that happens the price of oil will skyrocket and the world's economy will take a substantial enough hit that every other country will suffer drastically. War in that region of the world - especially a war that could leave the land radioactive for a long time - will make transporting food so expensive that many in the world will starve or steal (and die trying as others protect their own). I'm not sure anyone would really be happy if/when that happens.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (4, Insightful)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328710)

Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran

You sure about that?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133899,00.html [foxnews.com]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440472.stm [bbc.co.uk]

http://peoplesworld.org/coincidence-israeli-palestinian-talks-to-open-israel-threatens-iran-attack/ [peoplesworld.org]

And of course the US has made similar threats against Iran:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/hunter-giuliani-on-using-nukes-against-iran/ [cnn.com]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml [cbsnews.com]

But IMO, actions speak louder than words. Israel has invaded several countries within the last 50 years, when was the last time Iran invaded anyone? More than 100 years ago? With that said, I don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I believe it's hypocritical of Isreal and the US to keep a large stockpile of long range nuclear missiles while beating the war drums about how "dangerous" Iran is and that we need to invade them, and expect them to not try to defend themselves.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (-1, Troll)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328960)

Israel has stated unspecified relation and the right to *self-defense*. This is a right recognized by the United Nations and by all countries party to it. When it talks about 'pre-emptive' self-defence it is on shakier moral ground, but most pragmatists can see that it is necessary. However, there is a *huge* difference between stating that you will 'wipe' a country off the face of the Earth (Iran's *published* position) and the target of that threat stating they will remove that capability before it comes to pass (Israel's published position). These are published facts. I'm afraid if you can't see the difference in those positions and how the second position is a logical (and reasonable) reaction to the first then I'm afraid you need to do a lot more homework. You would also benefit from thinking about what would be a reasonable response if someone vowed to kill *you personally* and spent decades of effort and money trying to make it so. Turning the other cheek had been tried and failed miserably every time (incidentally, the US also had a policy of isolationism for a century, called the 'Monroe Doctrine' but found that trouble came to them if they did proactively try and neutralize it first)

Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327936)

lol, yeah because they haven't been invaded twice by neighboring countries and show recklessness with their armies. Regime will change in Iran eventually in the next 20 years, Saddam is gone so there really is no reason for Nuclear Weapons.
As bad as Israel is, it compares to nothing of the internal killings and ruthless murders that have gone on around them in surrounding countries. Quick turn a blind eye to that.

nuke 'em or Stuxent 'em (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327808)

nukes provided the armageddon shield. the 'intranets' might do the same.

Rambling summary (2)

Kagura (843695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327858)

Awful, rambling summary. Why is removing fuel from Bushehr "seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program"?

Re:Rambling summary (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327880)

Awful, rambling summary. Why is removing fuel from Bushehr "seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program"?

SPOILER ALERT! Read TFA SPOILER ALERT!

Re:Rambling summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327962)

TFA doesn't explain it, either.

Re:Rambling summary (3, Insightful)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327986)

Exactly. Removing (possibly some of the rods or even all of them) for safety and maintenance is not something that never happened in other reactors. It is something that happens frequently in the world.

Re:Rambling summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328148)

Maybe because the plant has apparently never gone into production, more than 30 years after groundbreaking?

playing a dangerous game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35327908)

I don't like the way the US/Israel is handling this situation. First of all attacking the computers of an operating nucreal power plant is quite dangerous as it might cause a meltdown if they don't act fast enough, and if there is an explosion or fire then the radioactive debris can be swept by the wind and blow into the face of the israelis and neighboring countries. Second of all, this is merely delaying the innevitable: that Iran will someday make a nuclear bomb. It might happen in 10 or 20 years but it's going to happen; if they got the ressources to set up a functioning nuclear power plant they will find a way to get enough enriched plutonium to make a bomb. Now i'm not saying US should start a new ground war or use drones, but the methods they are using right now are not effective in the long term. So, yeah something to think about. (I guess stuxnet buys them that time to think about what to do about Iran in the next 5-10 years)

Re:playing a dangerous game (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327974)

I don't like the way the US/Israel is handling this situation. First of all attacking the computers of an operating nucreal power plant is quite dangerous as it might cause a meltdown if they don't act fast enough, and if there is an explosion or fire then the radioactive debris can be swept by the wind and blow into the face of the israelis and neighboring countries.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Wild speculation form armchair physicists like you is the reason the US is so far behind other developed countries in nuclear power. You should also proofread your posts if you want to gain credibility.

Re:playing a dangerous game (2)

eltaco (1311561) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328372)

kettle, pot. pot, kettle.

Re:playing a dangerous game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328134)

An stretched army? Would public opinion would accept well a third war in the area? Will you enlist? Are people ready for it, again? So, yeah, something to think about.

Re:playing a dangerous game (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328354)

First of all attacking the computers of an operating nucreal power plant is quite dangerous as it might cause a meltdown if they don't act fast enough, and if there is an explosion or fire then the radioactive debris can be swept by the wind and blow into the face of the israelis and neighboring countries.

The computers that Stuxnet affected were controlling centrifuges that were attempting to enrich uranium, not in an operating nuclear power plant. In fact I don't think this nuclear power plant has ever been 'operational'.

Buying time is important. If enough time passes that some form of 'peace' can be established in the Middle East then Iran (and others) may not want/need to pursue nuclear weapons. If that never happens then buying time means using up Iran's limited resources which slows the process even more. Believe it or not there are already enough nuclear weapons in the world ... and so far only once country has used them on one occasion. I doubt we'll be able to make that same claim once everybody has them.

Why do I feel like epimetheus on this site... (1, Insightful)

rtilghman (736281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35327930)

Seriously, maybe Slashdot should change it's title to "News from yesterday, stuff that might still matter".

I realize Slashdot isn't a news site, but seeing news or stories about things that happened days or weeks ago is a little ridiculous.

-rt

Re:Why do I feel like epimetheus on this site... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328130)

That's because Slashdot only has two types of submitters nowadays: corporate sponsored (submissions always timely), bored individual (who reads up on the latest news hours or even days late).

An awkward but possible choice for Pu production (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328076)

http://www.iranwatch.org/privateviews/First%20Watch/perspex-fwi-plutoniumprocessing-0304.htm [iranwatch.org]

They'd need a reprocessing facility, and some way to handle undesirable concentrations of Pu-240, which decays by spontaneous fission and complicates bomb design.

Re:An awkward but possible choice for Pu productio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328172)

They'd need a reprocessing facility, and some way to handle undesirable concentrations of Pu-240, which decays by spontaneous fission and complicates bomb design.

I'm not up on my Iranian reactor design.

What'd the Russians sell 'em?
Was the reactor ever fired up?
If so, for how long?

The answers to those three questions are the things that determine whether or not we should be worried. Everything else in this thread has been noise. *sigh*

all this crap about israel (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328136)

i don't care about israel. israel doesn't matter: iran shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god. this is not the kind of person i want with a nuclear weapon

this is the constitution of iran:

1- General Principles
Article 1

The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; ...

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html [iranonline.com]

you want a government who believes these things in possession of a nuclear weapon?

and please, don't get me wrong: i don't have any problems with islam. if this document was centered on christianity or judaism i would have the same repulsion. i have problem with religious power structures, period. some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?! self-fulfilling prophecy? hello?

no, no fucking thanks, no nuke for iran

again: i don't care about israel. i have no problem with islam. i simply have a major serious problem with religious kooks possessing a nuclear bomb. NO THANK YOU

and please, i don't want any asshole lecturing me about false equivalency: that it's the same as pakistan, or israel, or the usa, or whatever: no, it isn't really the same. iran is EXPLICITLY a theocracy. A THEOCRACY. do you understand that? it really is different than saying "well gw bush is religious". yeah, good for him. but the fucking government he is part of isn't based on the fucking pope or some rabbi holding all ultimate power. that difference is real

In Dog we trust (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328314)

Did you ever read what is written on each and every US Dollar bill and coin?

Should we trust the USA to be the only theocratic country with nukes?

Re:In Dog we trust (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328380)

the usa is not a theocracy. compare the us constitution's statements on religion with that of iran's. no matter what eisenhower decided to add to our currency in the 1950s, this little brainfart doesn't alter the reality of longstanding constitutional separations between church and state

but this is just intellectual charity at this point. to call the usa a theocracy is just loudly announcing how ignorant you are

i don't really understand you false equivalency morons

Re:all this crap about israel (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328336)

The problem with nukes is that you don't want anybody else to have them. They should be limited to the 'right thinking folk'. While I am perfectly happy to agree with you that power mad theocracy's are not good candidates for nuclear weapons, lets look around:

Russia - which a decade ago imploded and nearly lost control (or perhaps has lost control) of nuclear weapons which cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to get under some degree of temporary security.

Pakistan - a nominally secular country in the midst of imploding into something that might make Afghanistan look sane.

India - a nominally democratic country that has nucs so it can ward off Pakistan.

Israel - again, a nominally democratic, secular country in the middle of a bunch of batshit insane theocracies. While they would be unlikely to first strike with nuclear weapons, they have been involved in three or four major military conflicts with their neighbors. Any resumption of major hostilities carries the real risk of nuclear weapon use, irrespective if Iran has them. Whether they're used for defensive or offensive purposes, starting a nuclear war in the Middle East doesn't strike most people as a good idea.

I think we should give them all to Canada.

Re:all this crap about israel (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328388)

I think we should give them all to Canada.

What? They'll change the pronunciation to 'noookes' and we'll never be able to get that voice out of our heads ... not to mention they'll eventually name a hockey team after them.

Re:all this crap about israel (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328462)

The Moose Jaw Loon Nukes

has a nice ring to it

Re:all this crap about israel (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328406)

no, we don't give them to canada

and no, its not ok for the usa to have them either. or france. or anyone

no one really deserves nukes. no regime is fit for them in my eyes

however, there is definitely a sliding scale of regimes who have nukes, and if you put canada on the top of your scale, you have to agree, iran falls down on the low end. so where do you draw the line between "i'm uncomfortable with this" and "no fucking way"

Re:all this crap about israel (2)

ipb (569735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328636)

...
there is definitely a sliding scale of regimes who have nukes, and if you put canada on the top of your scale, you have to agree, iran falls down on the low end. so where do you draw the line between "i'm uncomfortable with this" and "no fucking way"

Right below Canada.

Re:all this crap about israel (5, Informative)

thePig (964303) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328872)

India - a nominally democratic country that has nucs so it can ward off Pakistan.

I guess you are using nominally - as - existing on name only - right?

From this sentence, I take it that you have never been to India - and dont even really know about it. There are many negatives for India, but being non-democratic is not one of them.

Democracy is the most important thing in our collective psyche. And when people kick your country down on the biggest thing it believes, due to their ignorance - it really really feels bad.

MMM: Mass Martyr Machine (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328926)

It's different because religious zealots are more likely to be suicidal. As evil as the Soviets were, at least they wanted to live. The didn't believe that a bearded dude handed out rewards in an afterlife for holy warfare victories. The Iranian theocrats may decide it's "worth it" to take us out even if it means they die.

I suppose they could possibly argue the same about the far right in the US. However, Christianity does not have a significant history of suicidal martyrdom (at least not intentional).

Re:all this crap about israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328480)

i don't care about iran. iran doesn't matter: israel shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god. this is not the kind of person i want with a nuclear weapon blah blah blah ....

FTFY.

It is the same fucking old game: mine is bigger than yours because I belong to this or that group. Let them kill themselves, let them do whatever they want, it's called Self Determination [wikipedia.org] and everyone should respect their rights. BUT here, Israel is the invader...

Offtopic: I hope the US don't want another Iraq in Libia...

please shut the fuck up about israel (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328516)

i don't fucking care about israel. i don't care if it exists for a thousand years or disappears tomorrow. neither occurrence would change my opinion about the THEOCRACY of iran having nukes

my opinion about iran having nukes has to do with IRAN. with the CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS of the government possessing nuclear weapons. in iran's case, and iran's case alone, a RELIGIOUS power structure is getting possession of a nuclear weapon. this really bothers me, immensely. and it has nothing to do with islam. it would bother me just as much i f we were talking about a country with a jewish or christian theocracy

a THEOCRACY should not have nuclear weapons. beginning and end of discussion

everyone please shut the fuck up with the false equivalencies: only iran is a theocracy. and that is the source of the formation of my opinion

Re:all this crap about israel (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328788)

Hi circletimessquare! I hate ta break the news to you but guess what our mid east policies are based on? Ready? "Jesus won't come back!". Yep, fraid so, wish I was kidding, sadly not. I live next to a heavily conservative college that donates to the right wing and gets many movers and shakers to lecture there, and I'm afraid that is pretty much it.

So I hate to tell you that while I agree that Iran is batshit, sadly when it comes to religion our leaders are just as batshit as they are. I mean when you base your foreign policy for an entire region, as well as give away BILLIONS of dollars you don't have to a country that routinely tells us to go fuck ourselves in return, all because some text written on a sheep's ass by goat herders half a world away 20 centuries plus ago says that if we don't a two thousand year dead man won't have a place to park his fluffy cloud?

I'm sorry but that is seriously fucked up and the fact that we prop up monsters like in Egypt just because they will play ball with "the chosen people" according to a sheepskin just means they have EVERY reason to hate us. Personally we should tell them "good luck!" and pack up our shit and go home. I have a feeling Israel wouldn't act like giant pricks if they knew they couldn't snap their fingers and have the USA cut them a check or send them some killer weapons tech.

Of course one thing you have to give them credit for is their skills in propaganda. I mean nobody in power dares say shit about Israel for fear of being labeled a Nazi loving antisemitic. Doesn't matter if their policies make things ever worse, or what they do to the Arabs, you say a word you'll be called antisemitic before you even set the mike down. Gotta give them credit where credit is due, and they are damned good at playing that card.

Re:all this crap about israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328834)

Remember Helen Thomas Anyone ?

Re:all this crap about israel (2)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328986)

Actually in one war Israel could see Egyptian preparations and launched a pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian airbases. The US did not like this and did not supply ammo. Israel learnt from this and developed its own arms industry as a result. Now their arms industry is more advanced in many areas than the US (who do you think designs the lasers, helmet-mounted sights, robots and even Intel CPUs that the US uses? thanks to their very high output of scientists). So, while you "Monroe Doctrine" approach sounds good it has been historically proven to not work, plus the US *loves* giving foreign aid (eg. weapon credits to buy US-made gear) to countries like Israel, which has far more to do with domestic US pork-barrel politics than geopolitics. If you took US domestic politics out of their foreign policy stances then there would be a *lot* less military stuff bought and sold round the world (which would also result in a lower inclination to use all that shiny stuff you just bought). So, a nice story from you, but a little short on facts or historical insight.

Re:all this crap about israel (3, Informative)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328800)

I'm happy you cite primary sources, but it's a bit more complicated than that, since Iran's theocracy is rooted in democracy and elected institutions.
Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is chosen by the Assembly of Experts who are voted by the people; this is analogous to how the President is indirectly elected by the Electoral College. He in turn appoints the Courts and armed forces.
Here's a good flowchart [bbc.co.uk] .

What makes it a bit harder for people to understand is that Iranians are electing a head of state who is also at the same time their religious leader (aka the marjiya), although many follow other Ayatollahs such as Sistani or Montazeri. Iran is not religiously homogeneous, there are about 25,000 Jews in Iran and they get guaranteed representatives in the Parliament as well as the Bahais and others.

Re:all this crap about israel (2)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328888)

this is analogous to how the President is indirectly elected

I do see problem with election, when people start questioning election results and authorities try to suppress them.

Re:all this crap about israel (4, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35329002)

Not quite the same. What are the actual limits on power of the Supreme Leader? What checks and balances are there to make sure the Supreme Leader follows the will of the people/democratic process? It appears while there might be some limits in theory in practice the Supreme Leader has the Pasdaran and Basiji to do whatever the hell he wants. Iran has the trappings of a democracy but in actual practice it is a very corrupt absolute theocracy. Which is a real shame since all the Iranians I meet I really like as generally intelligent, warm and humerous people.

IAmANutJob, Twelvers, Nukes (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328950)

> some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?!

It is actually worse for the twelvers to have bombs vs some crazed Pentecostals having the bomb because the twelvers believe they can actually cause the chaos that leads to their end times scenario. Most Christians, even the end times types, would reject the notion that they can 'force God's hand', most even reject the notion we can know when the big kaboom is coming exactly. Not saying if they did have the bomb a couple couldn't manage to convince themselves they were God's chosen instrument, hearing the voice of God in their dental fillings or whatever. What I am saying is IAmANutJob is saying, loud, proud and notoriously at the UN on live tv, he can 'hasten the return of the Mahdi' now, before getting his crazy hand on The Button. When a maniac all but comes out and says "I want the world to burn" perhaps we should decide we don't need to wait and see if he means it before inducing lead poisoning.

And before some barely functioning idiot says one of the obvious rejoinders I'll go ahead and answer them.

1. Yes that is a call to assassinate a head of state.

2. Yes that is a call for the US to act like the 'policeman of the world' or something. Not that the current pussy running this joint would act against a foe. He only throws allies under the bus. (Support any foe, Oppose any friend. Sorta the mirror universe version of JFK. Obama should have a beard.)

3. No it won't ''solve' the prolifiation problem long term. But them most solutions don't solve all future problems. I don't claim to have the answer to how we all transcend to Good people who all come together in peace and fellowship, singing Kumbaya into eternity. But I do have a solution to one dangerous asshole who is soon going to have the means to trigger an event that will leave hundreds of millions of dead and dying. At the risk of Godwins law, lots of folks saw the growing problem in the 1930 and ended up inventing 'rational reasons' (rationalizations) for doing nothing. Until Reagan, all right thinking people believed the West was going to lose to the Soviets so why raise a ruckus, besides we had it coming because of [insert rationalization]. How many times does history need to repeat?

[troll]
If anyone needed final proof the Iranians are batshit crazy, they built their secret nuke program on off the shelf Windows PCs and apparently didn't even take basic precautions. Guess they thought Allah would protect them in their Holy work or something. Guess the Mossad's God was bigger. :)
[/troll]

Can the removed materials be used for a Nuke? (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328206)

If it is possible for the material to be used to make a nuclear weapon, then this may be a bad thing. If it isn't then yay, counter terrorist hackers ftw!
Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist state seems like a very bad thing if you don't think murdering innocents intentionally is an acceptable political tactic.
Imagine David Karesh [wikipedia.org] with a nuke...
I know it's a bad analogy, I'm just sayin these Iranian dudes ain't cooking with a full load of fava beans [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Can the removed materials be used for a Nuke? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328824)

That's a pretty bad analogy. Yes, Iranians believe the antichrist will one day come and the apocalypse will happen, but people who believe in it are the type who are willing to sit and wait for it to come, and not try and hasten it like some Christian millennialists do (those are the ones who want the Dome of the Rock destroyed and the temple of Solomon rebuilt in its place, in the belief that Jesus will come back faster if they do).

As for the murdering of civilians, Ayatollah Khomeini categorically stated that nuclear weapons are inherently sinful; they kill indiscriminately and destroy women, children, crops, and nature. His fatwa states that it is Haram (forbidden) for anyone or any country to own or use them. Khamenei, his successor and leader of Iran today, concurs with the ruling. Iranians support this ruling and generally don't think the country's program is for anything but actual legal nuclear power.

Re:Can the removed materials be used for a Nuke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328870)

It doesn't matter if the removed material is weapons grade or not. The agreement with Russia states that the material is to be returned to Russia. End of story.

Just in time (0)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328310)

for Duke Nukem Forever!

source of plutonium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328326)

That is great, except that during operation, uranium-238 absorb neutrons and becomes plutonium. It is easier to separate the plutonium from the fissile waste for weapons than it is to separate u-235 from natural uranium. (Uranium has to be separated by mass )

Re:source of plutonium (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328940)

Get your crazy witchcraft out of here.

Awful about Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35328984)

I'm really scared about all this. I live in California, will I be in any danger from Iran? I wonder if I would be safer in Canada, although I do have a bunker under my weather lab.
Kevin Martin, Meteorologist SCWXA [blogspot.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>