[extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ?

[Samantha Atkins]

We slap a label on a country and expect the normal rules not to  
apply.  Very neat.  A much scarier country that already has nukes is  
Pakistan.   But they are our good buds.  Israel is a major  
international outlaw by the number and scope of UN resolutions they  
have violated but they have had nukes since at least the sixties and  
are one of the most heavily militarized countries per capita on the  
planet.  All secular folks in Israel are bound by law to support a  
huge and growing religious caste.   The religious caste has  
tremendous power.  Israel is arguably not a secular State in  
practice.  Yet they are certainly our good friends.  So the issue  
does not seem to come down to a State being in good repute or being  
in its government cleanly secular.   State involved in terrorism?   
Saudi Arabia is heavily involved in terrorism.  Most of the 911  
hijackers were Saudi.  But they are also our buds.  We even edited  
out the parts of the 911 commission report that might have made them  
look bad.   So tell me again why Iran having nuclear power and maybe  
some day being able to produce nuclear bombs is a major crisis.

- samantha


On Jan 17, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Brian Lee wrote:

> I don't think Iran's race has anything to do with it (re: the  
> "brown people" comment). It has more to do with their terrorist  
> nation status. Maybe it's just me, but Iran having nuclear weapons  
> scares me. Nuclear power doesn't. I think it's smart for Iran to  
> pursue nuclear power as it may take 20 years to really get serious  
> power output and they need to start now if they want to be ready  
> when the oil is gone. But I don't think Iran has shown itself  
> responsible enough to have nuclear weapons.
>
> BAL
>
>> From: user <user at dhp.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy  
>> strategy ?
>> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:25:36 -0500 (EST)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Brian Lee wrote:
>>
>> > The last plan I saw was that the EU/US wanted to provide the  
>> enriched
>> > uranium to fuel Iran's future reactors. Iran was against that  
>> and so we're
>> > at where we are today. So I guess there's no solution that gives  
>> Iran the
>> > capability to make nuclear fuel without the capability to make  
>> weapons grade
>> > material.
>>
>>
>> Which seems sensible from a "we're scared of brown people"  
>> standpoint, but
>> from Irans standpoint ... I would reject that plan as well.  If they
>> really were (a big if) interested in modern electrical power
>> infrastructure to tie their developing country to, why shackle  
>> yourself to
>> the goodwill of others to provide the necessary fuel ?
>>
>> Again, it seems like a perfect role reversal, and if I were Iran I  
>> would
>> balk too...
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat