What's new

Iran Begins Fueling First Nuclear Reactor

Devil Soul

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
22,931
Reaction score
45
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Iran Begins Fueling First Nuclear Reactor
BUSHEHR, Iran (AP) -- Iranian and Russian engineers began loading fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant on Saturday, a major milestone as Tehran forges ahead with its atomic program despite U.N. sanctions.

The weeklong operation to load uranium fuel into the reactor at the Bushehr power plant in southern Iran is the first step in starting up a facility the U.S. once hoped to prevent because of fears over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

"The startup operations will be a big success for Iran," conservative lawmaker Javad Karimi said in Tehran. "It also shows Iran's resolve and capability in pursuing its nuclear activities."

Russia, which helped finish building the plant, has pledged to safeguard the site and prevent spent nuclear fuel from being shifted to a possible weapons program. After years of delaying its completion, Moscow says it believes the Bushehr project is essential for persuading Iran to cooperate with international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop the bomb.

The United States, while no longer formally objecting to the plant, disagrees and says Iran should not be rewarded while it continues to defy U.N. demands to halt enrichment of uranium, a process used to produce fuel for power plants but which can also be used in weapons production.

On Saturday, a first truckload of fuel was taken from a storage site to a fuel "pool" inside the reactor building. Over the next 10 days, 163 fuel assemblies -- equal to 80 tons of uranium fuel -- will be moved inside the building and then into the reactor core.

It will then be at least another month before the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor is pumping electricity to Iranian cities.

Iran denies an intention to develop nuclear weapons, saying it only wants to generate power with a network of nuclear plants it plans to build.

The Bushehr plant is not considered a proliferation risk because the terms of the deal commit the Iranians to allowing the Russians to retrieve all used reactor fuel for reprocessing. Spent fuel contains plutonium, which can be used to make atomic weapons. Additionally, Iran has said that International Atomic Energy Agency experts will be able to verify that none of the fresh fuel or waste is diverted.

Of greater concern to the West, however, are Iran's stated plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment sites inside protected mountain strongholds. Iran said recently it will begin construction on the first one in March in defiance of the U.N. sanctions.

Nationwide celebrations were planned for Saturday's fuel loading at Bushehr.
 
Good news indeed........ this should ideally lead to a balance of power in the Middle East vis-a-vis the zionists.
 
Hmmm... The question is, would they really use nukes against Israel's holy sites, like the Dome of the Rock?
 
This is remarkable day in history. Iran had made its mark.
 
Too late for Israel to strike it now!

Hmmm... The question is, would they really use nukes against Israel's holy sites, like the Dome of the Rock?

I don't think they are likely to do that. Mutually assured destruction still applies.
 
Too late for Israel to strike it now!



I don't think they are likely to do that. Mutually assured destruction still applies.

That's no reason to let Iran acquire nukes in the first place.
imo, it's better that one side (nato + israel) has nukes and Iran does not.

It'll keep the threat of all out war down.
 
That's no reason to let Iran acquire nukes in the first place.

I never said that I favoured the idea of Iran having nukes. Personally I would like to see a world without nukes, although that is a very long-term vision.

The point is that no-one seems willing (or able) to stop Iran from acquiring a nuke.

So assuming that Iran eventually gets the nuclear weapon, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction will stop them from using it directly against another country.

Of course there is the issue of nuclear terrorism as well, but such things can be traced back to the point of origin. So Mutually Assured Destruction still applies.

(Still, if Iran had a nuke, it might make Israel think twice before launching another invasion of Lebanon and/or Gaza like they did in 2006-2008. And it might stop wars like Iraq and Afghanistan from happening over false WMD information, due to the increased threat of retaliation).
 
Last edited:
That's no reason to let Iran acquire nukes in the first place.
imo, it's better that one side (nato + israel) has nukes and Iran does not.

It'll keep the threat of all out war down.

Firstly, when has an inequality in arms ever led to peace? Perhaps I am a poor student of history but to my knowledge it has either led to conflict or an arm's race.

Secondly, by what reasoning does Israel deserve to have such destructive devices and other not?

Thirdly, please state what country Iran has said that it wishes to drop a nuclear payload on and also the country which Iran has stated that it intends to launch military operations against. So far, I have only heard of other nations intentions to strike Iran and of them stating that all options are on the table including a nuclear one.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom