So I'm not exactly certain what the "nuclear story" truly is, but I did find a couple of sources. I would call them biased, but I'm still not even sure how.
The first is from Fox News, called "Republicans Push Obama to 'Pull the Trigger' on Iran." Sounds awful, right? Here are some "facts" I managed to pull from the article:
1) Officials have admitted that Iran is roughly a year away from having nuclear weapons.
2) Iran keeps saying that it is using enriched uranium for power purposes, not for weapons.
3) Obama obviously organized a 47-country summit to address nuclear power -- and didn't bother to invite Iran.
4) Obama's plan promises that we will not use nuclear weapons against a country without them.
5) Iran and North Korea were excluded from the previous promise because they have been uncooperating.
In another article published before the summit, I found these facts:
1) We passed Resolution 1887 last fall. No idea what that is.
2) Apparently the challenge, according to the article (also published by Fox News, titled "Nuclear Security Summit Communique and Work Plan"), is to find out what to do with the 2000 tons of plutonium and enriched uranium.
3) I didn't really understand much else...
Further research led me naturally to what Obama and others were saying:
1) McCain says that we have not been tough enough on Iran, that we've been pointing a loaded gun at them, but failing to "pull the trigger."
2) Obama says that "Words have to mean something. There have to be some consequences."
3) Senator Jon Kyl says that the summit was a disappointment.
4) Obama also brought up the issue of Al Qaeda finding the weapons and using them.
I'm not sure what all of this means, but it sure is hard for those of us who don't know all about uranium and nuclear energy to understand everything that's going on. Hopefully some source will provide unbiased, layman's information about all of this...
Melanie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great work! I'm not sure of the "fact" that Obama called a 47 nation summit . .. and didn't bother to invite Iran. I think Iran didn't come. Neither did Bibi Netanyahu who didn't want to be under scrutiny for Israel's probable possession of nuclear weapons. Most everyone thinks Israel has them, but Israel has not admitted as much. Probably the best place for background information about uranium, plutonium, and enriched uranium would be internet searches. For physical, tangible places for background information, probably the weekly newsmagazines. Simplest possible distinction is that uranium needs to be "highly enriched" to be "weapons grade." Other uranium can be used for an energy source. I think it is a fact that it's a problem what to do with the tons of uranium that might be coming our way. It's sort of like closing Gitmo . . . do it but not around me. I heard one story which said we'd "un-enrich" the uranium, make it not weapons grade. I didn't know that could be done. Good work!
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess that speaks to the media's bias -- the article I read clearly suggested that Obama didn't want Iran to come, not that Iran chose not to come. ;)
ReplyDeleteApparently there have been some smuggling issues in Georgia (the country, not the state). Enriched uranium seems to be plentiful in the black market there. But I don't see anything about being able to "un-enrich" what they confiscated. I wonder what they're going to do with what they found. Keep it for themselves?
It's going to be difficult to find much more information about all of this until there are some new developments. But from what I can gather, it would appear the the U.S.'s anti-nuclear weapons stance is almost being torted to an anti-Iran stance. Not exactly the same things, but for some reason our media tends to do this. I doubt we'll ever really see Iran as a "good" country anymore. Our views will likely be skewed into thinking that Iran is simply intent on taking-over the world.
Ok, in an article in the New York Times, Obama says that he plans to considerably narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, but "he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation."
ReplyDeleteObama goes on to say that he would consider any other option before using nuclear weapons, which I personally think is great. Later in the article, it says that if he felt the threat of a nuclear or biological weapon being used against the United States was great enough, he would reconsider and use nuclear force.
When talking about Iran, he says that the path they are on with their "nuclear program" will lead to weapons, not simply energy as they are saying. He didn't mention a timeline, like Melanie did in her first comment. Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran “that has bite,” but he would not embrace the phrase “crippling sanctions” once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." He also says that he knows one sanction from the UN isn't going to magically change Iranian behavior.
This is Kaley...I can't figure out how to change the "comment as" bit.
ReplyDeleteI was very enticed by this enriched urnaium statement by Iran. I wanted to know just what Iran can do with their first significant batch of enriched Urnaium and what they U.S has done in comparison. Is this a threat? Or just another story to argue about?
In an article from the New York Times, I found that Tehran, Iran has finally enriched their uranium to 20% with is 70% less than what they need to manufacture weapons. The U.S and the U.N (says the NY Times) are discussing how to hault the enrichment of Tehrans' Uranium. The Iranians obviously deny that they are not wanting to make weapons but use the enriched uranium to run their "Research Reactor."
"The research reactor produces medical isotopes, including material for treating cancer and other diseases that the government says will go to treating some 850,000 people"
Is it possible that instead of holding Iran back in the game of the world, that the U.S and U.N could allow production and enrichment of this urnaium (under strict laws and regulations) so that these some 850,000 people could be treated? I feel that this is a battle of who can have the most weapons and be in the "in group" or allied group of nuclear powers. Yes there is a chance that Iran could make weapons as they progress with their uranium, but that could take upwards of five years( Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Times Topics) and we all know what can happen to technology in five years! As Melanie stated above Obama, our president, says "words have to mean something." Does that mean English words, or Iranian words to? I guess what I am saying is, Iranians are humans too, they should have to right to progress in the world and we should take their words with some belief rather than complete doubt. Is there a way to regulate and watch their production? What if they find a cure to cancer with what they are learning to do? Do we still shun them?
Great comments, you three. You really interwove some stories and information.
ReplyDeleteTo Kaley's question, the concept of oversight of Iran's nuclear development is precisely the issue. Like North Korea, they refuse to open sites for inspection. Most of their new sites (and they continue to build new ones) are deep underground. Add to that the president's rhetoric, that Israel doesn't deserve to be on the face of the earth and if Iran gets nuclear weapons it will explode them in Israel. Then Obama says "words have to matter." IF words are to be taken seriously, then Iran and North Korea must be considered threats to world peace. Earlier reports that sanctions backed by Obama were garnering support from traditional friends of Iran (China and Russia) turned out to be false. Both China and Russia re backing away from meaningful sanctions. And, after all, sanctions imposed by Big Bush, by Clinton, and by W Bush did not work. Nuclear development continued in both countries so now N. Korea has exploded a nuclear device and Iran is on the same path. Both countries had agreed in the past to nuclear inspections and constantly made public assurances that their developments were for peaceful purposes. Didn't turn out that way. Not so much.
To Melanie's comment about our anti-nuclear stance being tortured into an anti-Iranian stance, I agree. Our media loves a bit o'conflict, and they'll get conflict wherever they can. On the other hand, there are substantive issues to be conflicted over between Iran and U.S. As to seeing Iran as a "good" country again . . . I have been reading a book that points out what a friendly relationship the U.S. had with Iran as recently as 2001. Amazing what a change of president can do (I mean Ahmendinejad, not Obama). But it would certainly help in everyone's perception of Iran as a good country if they'd stop 1. threatening Israel with nuclear destruction, 2. stop denying that the Holocaust ever took place, 3. stop bragging that because they're so close to having a nuclear bomb that they can now dictate terms in the region. It's a similar phenomenon to N. Korea, post nuclear bomb.
ReplyDeleteSo Cheers!!
Gordon