Weapons grade uranium found again in Iran?

The U.N. nuclear watchdog has found traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium at a second site in Iran, diplomats said on Thursday, and President Bush warned Tehran it faces global condemnation.

One diplomat told Reuters the discovery could support Tehran's explanation that the discovery of highly enriched uranium at a previous site in Iran was due to contamination from imported components.

But several other diplomats said it could support the U.S. theory that Iran has been secretly purifying uranium for use in a nuclear explosive device -- a charge Tehran denies. . . .

What the discovery does support is that Iran has weapon grade uranium. The discover at a second site indicates that the discovery at the first site was not the result of some hard to believe accident. The claim that this supports "Tehran's explanation" just seems bizarre. How does the fact that this weapons grade uranium was found at a second site prove anything about imported components? Would finding such uranium at a third or fourth site make that case even stronger?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if Iran has nuclear weapons or not. When at least one country has them then any other country has a right to have them. To expect or assume Iran should not have them or does not have a right to them is the same as expecting US citizens to not be allowed to arm themselves for personal protection. Every individual has a right to their lives and every individual has a right to protect their lives - the same rationale applies to other countries - they have a right to arm themselves for protection from other countries, including the US.

Weapons, small pistols or artillery rounds containing a nuclear warhead, are a deterrence to crime - crime that can occur in a community in a small town, large city or in another country.

The real problem is Bush and Rice; when he goes globe hopping and imposing his views and values on other countries (including invading other countries) he only incites fear in countries that believe we might attack them. This fear compels other countries to armn themselves. Isn't that part of our rationale for wanting to carry firearms for personal protection ? The fear that a mugger might try to rob or harm us.

"The problem of nuclear proliferation is caused by US intervention" the solution is "minding our own business."

If the US were to withdraw from Iraq, stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, remove other US military forces stationed around the world then countries like Iran and North Korea probably would not waste their resources on producing an extremely difficult to produce weapon such as nuclear missiles.

Bush and Iran's president (assuming he's more irrational than Bush) getting into this piss contest is the thing that makes me nervous, not the fact that North Korea or Iran have or will have nuclear weapons.


5/12/2006 2:55 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Well, Iran has apparently been working hard to get nuclear weapons for years, long before Bush was in office. I also don't believe that Bush would either want to or would be capable even if he wanted to of giving Iran a hard time if Iran wasn't posing a threat to others. Does Israel pose a threat to Iran? The letter that Iran just sent to Bush implies that the US must not only help get rid of Israel but also abandon liberal democracy and adopt a Islamic theocracy to avoid being attacked by Iran.

5/12/2006 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with everything you say; and I also agree or believe that a country can be a threat to another one just the same as criminals are a threat to law-abiding peaceful citizens. I also believe the US should support Isreal but only if or when Israel would need help from another country.

But meddling is still the problem: Bush or any US president should only warn Iran that if it attacks with nuclear weapons the US will intervene. That's the benefit of having weapons - deterrence. What happens when the majority of law abiding citizens carry firearms? Crime rates go down. We don't go around arguing or threatening others or brandishing our weapons. But we could warn a threatening person.

But to tell Iran or any country it is wrong to arm themselves is the one thing that has to incite the most anger and hate. For example, (I won't even ask you, I'll just tell you and threaten you) I say to you John Lott, You had better not be armed, you better not walk in the public's domain carrying a firearm, because if you do I will take you out.

Israel is a threat to Iranian values (not a military threat); it has been for a long time, and has the support of the US. Arabs don't like this and neither would you like it if you lived next door to a neighbor who held values contrary to yours, and was friends with other types of people you did not like.

The US has a huge arsenal of weapons; this piss contest only encourages the perception of the inevitable. If Iran should use a nuclear weapon then within hours Iran could receive a massive retaliatory strike. It has to know and understand this; attacking Israel would only create the end for Iran. Therefore when Bush argues or threatens Iran it is not only useless for Americans but becomes detrimental to us by antagonizing Arabs already angered by Israel's existence in the Middle East. Bush encourages more terror the same as he is responsible for all the violence in Iraq. Iranians and all other Arabs know they can never win a battle involving their armies (1967 6 day war against Israel.) That is why they use terror attacks.

How or should a rational individual relate to an unusual person or a person appearing to be mentally deranged ? Do you either ignore this person or avoid him - or do you incite him into acting and then deal with him ? Or do you simply incarcerate him using force (illegal in a free country)? Or do you mind your own business (but carry a firearm for protecting yourself)? When you walk down the street with your family next to you, how do you relate to a homeless street person who may be mentally sick ? I'll bet you would ignore and avoid him so that your family not only does not get hurt but also so that they do not witness violence, and you would also do this for the simple reason of avoiding trouble. You would not do anything to incite this person while you were near him, especially if your family were with you.

How would you relate to a next door neighbor who held values much different than yours ? I'll bet you would completely ignore them. You would not say or do anything to them. Even if they actually did commit a crime against you (but you could not prove it yet) you would not 'get your gun' and go over there seeking either retaliation or seeking to rationalize with them - you would avoid them. Why should the US avoid Iran ? Because escalating this problem can lead to a deadly and expensive outcome; and when we wage war we lose freedom here in the US. We will never make the world into a utopia.

Our activities in Iraq creates more tensions in the Middle East, compels more countries to waste their resources on expensive weapons rather than spending their resources on their citizens. And then when Bush tells them they are wrong for arming themselves creates even more tension, animosity and hate towards the US.

All we ever had to do was warn countries hostile to Israel that we would never tolerate attacks aimed at eliminating Israel.

One fact has alway been clear to me: our military, one way or another, can quickly stop Iran; arguing or rationalizing with them and especially dictating to them they cannot arm themselves is a waste of time and effort and only escalates and worsens the problem.

When you have proof a neighbor has committed a crime against you then you have a right to retaliate, but how far do you go or how much are you allowed to retaliate? If your neighbor (only) breaks your window you don't have a right to kill him or permanently disarm him.


5/13/2006 6:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a point(s) were missed. If your neighbor half way down the street (Iran) is a whack job and threatens your friend across the street or your next door neighbor, just because they are different, and you if you 'help' them out, what then? If he was armed, wouldn't it be prudent for authority to consider disarming him. If he threatens "I'm going to get a gun (or nuclear weapons) and shoot them (or you) someday" Isn't that something that should be taken seriously? Are whack jobs allowed weapons?, don't think so. To do less invites trouble.

On a side note; for the radical Muslims, it appears everything is sacred or holy. It's like walking through a stable, corral, or a six dog yard, yer gonna get crap on your feet no matter what. Do you freak out trying not to step in something (while they're laughing their isses off) or do you go about your business? One can, of course, can be mindful of the big piles Or it just better never go in the stable, corral, or yard?

5/16/2006 12:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home