Posted on 09/30/2004 9:28:24 PM PDT by Nyboe
ROFL !
Did John Kerry actually suggest we
"sell nuclear fuel to Iran" !?!?!
you've got to be kidding me !
Link?
How very strange. I hope that quote makes some headlines.
I think your post will get pulled as a duplicate soon, but I hope Rush and others hit hard on this one tomorrow. It truly is hugh!
"KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing."
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/NEWS09/40930003
Kerry would "appease" Iran the way Clinton "appeased" North Korea.
Yeah, right.
hugh? not hugh! ... but very, very series!
That would be interesting! The Israelis have promised to destroy the reactors before the Iranians can put fuel in them and we sold them a whole bunch of smart bombs just last week. I wonder if Kerry is aware of this. :^)
Yeah, great poll question there. "Should the U.S. sell nuclear fuel to Iran?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232125/posts
Le ZOTTE: My very IMPORTANT opinion on tonight's debate. VERY IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS VANITY! MUST R
Posted on 09/30/2004 10:56:49 PM CDT by Jim Robinson
NO ONE ELSE THOUGHT OF THIS SO IT DESERVES A THREAD OF ITS OWN!
Here's how it works, we put a bit of it in each box of Cracker Jacks, then sell them 7839 boatloads of Cracker Jacks. See? It's simple, when ya know whut yer doin.
"With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power...."
So he's saying that we should have given nuclear fuel to Iran, then monitor them. (post #4 quote) 'Scuze me, but what you followed up with on N. Korea is that we had (under Clinton) given them fuel and monitored them. Obviously that worked real well, Senator...
Yeah ... then he went on to invoke REAGAN !!!?!?
and to top it off accused Bush of not providing body armor to the troops...
oh yeah... that's the body armor that was in the 87 billion dollar bill HE VOTED AGAINST !!!
ARRGGGG!!!!!!
Well - does anyone have a definitive nature of the science of the issue?
I know nothing about nuclear weapons fuel, but I was a nuclear technician in the navy, and I do know that uranium fuel for nuclear reactors, after they are manufactured and ready to be used as fuel for reactors, are not easily converted to nuclear weapons, if at all. And by the way, it is important to note, either way, that the uranium in fuel rods for nuclear reactors is already enriched.
If these fuel rods - which is, in my understanding, what some are proposing to sell to Iran and other countries - cannot be converted to nuclear weapons fuel, then this would be an excellent idea. It is my understanding that these fuel rods cannot be reprocessed into nuclear weapons, but then again, I have been out of the field for 7 years. There are also many other reactor fuel rod constructions besides the naval design, and I cannot speak about those, either.
Obviously, the bottom line is that no one can debate this intelligently until a couple of things are made clear. One would need to know what exactly Kerry and others are proposing to sell to countries like Iran, and one would also need to know, definitively, how feasible converting this material to weapons grade fuel is.
Let's not jump to conclusions like liberals do. If whatever they are talking about is tamperproof, then it sounds like a perfect way to eliminate the rogue countries' using "the peaceful application of nuclear technology research" as a cover for developing nuclear weapons. If we sell them what they want, and it's truly tamperproof, then I cannot see a downside to this. Again, first, we need to answer those 2 questions before we can discuss it intelligently.
Yes, he said that.. Plus we need to "Pass a global test" before defending America.
it it my understanding that is exactly how the north koreans are developing a nuclear bombs
(by converting the spent fuel rods into bomb grade material) (which clinton sold them btw)
The "global test" line was the one major screw up in Kerry's debate - and it's very frightening to hear. Bush made a horrible mistake not making that a huge issue.
And another thing on the nuclear fuel - assuming it is tamperproof, the sale of such material would be a huge item of leverage and influence our government has over nuclear-wannabe's.
Yes, but let's find out for sure before we make a final decision. Also, it was my understanding that Clinton sold them fuel that could be used in a "breeder" reactor - precisely the device used to make nuclear weapons fuel.
I'm almost certain breeder reactors do not use the same type of fuel or fuel "matrix" design at all as power-generating reactors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.