Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military News Politics

Iran To 'Remove Fuel' From Bushehr Nuclear Plant 240

Posted by timothy
from the ha-ha-biff-stuxnet-ha-ha-that's-rich dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iran To 'Remove Fuel' From Bushehr Nuclear Plant

Comments Filter:
  • by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Saturday February 26, 2011 @10:38PM (#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.
  • by rtilghman (736281) on Saturday February 26, 2011 @10:49PM (#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

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Saturday February 26, 2011 @10:56PM (#35327970)
    then you understand why iran wants them. If israel has then then you agree iran needs them for a deterrence.
  • by wmac (1107843) on Saturday February 26, 2011 @10:58PM (#35327986) Homepage

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 26, 2011 @11:09PM (#35328054)

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

  • by Cwix (1671282) on Saturday February 26, 2011 @11:10PM (#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?

  • 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

  • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @12:07AM (#35328336) Homepage
    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.
  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @12:23AM (#35328418) Homepage

    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.

  • by gambino21 (809810) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @01:35AM (#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.

  • by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @03:21AM (#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.
  • by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @10:07AM (#35330126)

    Facts please. When did Israel threaten another country with nukes? They don't even acknowledge they have them.

    Actually Israel has used it's nukes as part of a threat when US aid was restricted.

    Of course it wasn't acknowledged. But when you roll out a certain squadron from bunkers with the clear intention of allowing it to be seen by the people who know what it is, and the purpose of that rollout was to say, "We need aid, or these are all we have left to defend ourselves." The threat is quite clear.

    Essentially, Israel used their nukes as leverage in negotiations to say that they didn't want to use them, but they would if that's all they had.

  • by TapeCutter (624760) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @10:07AM (#35330128) Journal
    No matter which way it is translated it's just empty rhetoric for domestic consumption. Bush labeling Iran as part of the "axis of evil" and then invading two bordering countries to the north and the west of Iran is what a credible threat looks like.
  • by TapeCutter (624760) on Sunday February 27, 2011 @10:35AM (#35330244) Journal

    Zionism is not racism

    That's a matter of opinion [wikipedia.org]. The main reason we have the palestinian problem is that Isreal will not allow them to return because recognising them as citizens would fuck up their majority jewish demographic. The gigantic palestinian concentration camps have a different history to South African Apartheid but the end result is the same.

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...