Iran denies that it has begun full-scale enrichment. Says they wanna talk to Moscow first.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Tehran/Moscow - Iran Tuesday rejected reports that it began full-scale uranium enrichment activity and said it will consult in Moscow next Monday on a possible compromise solution to the crisis around its nuclear programme.

At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said during a visit to Armenia that Tehran eventually intended to produce nuclear fuel using its own uranium enrichment facilities, contrary to recent press reports.

Russian media reported that Iran has set rigorous terms for its acceptance of Moscow's proposal to create a joint enterprise in Russia for the enrichment of uranium for Iran's nuclear power programme.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middlee...chment_official

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Iran wants a fuel pellet in every pot. I don't have a problem with that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Iran wants a fuel pellet in every pot. I don't have a problem with that.

Question.

Why is it so much worse for Iran to have nukes than for Pakistan?

Do we really believe that Iran is more irrational and/or unstable than Pakistan?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Iran wants a fuel pellet in every pot. I don't have a problem with that.

Question.

Why is it so much worse for Iran to have nukes than for Pakistan?

Do we really believe that Iran is more irrational and/or unstable than Pakistan?

1. Because Pakistan already has them and Iran doesn't. If it were the other way around the opposite would be true.

2. No. But the fewer members of the 'club' the better.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

2. No. But the fewer members of the 'club' the better.

Why?

I'm serious. If nuclear weapons are an effective mutual deterrent, why do we want a small club?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

2. No. But the fewer members of the 'club' the better.

Why?

I'm serious. If nuclear weapons are an effective mutual deterrent, why do we want a small club?

Maybe because people are afraid that some madman will get hold of the red button...in addition to the madmen already having their own red button.

But honestly, no idea. I'm against nuclear proliferation and pro-disarmament. Only if the current nuclear powers are dismantling their arsenals will other countries be convinced it's the right thing to do.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Only if the current nuclear powers are dismantling their arsenals will other countries be convinced it's the right thing to do.

And to take that a bit further, the current nuclear powers will only completely dismantle if they're convinced that the others are really doing the same thing. Not an easy thing to manage, I'm sure. No one wants to go first. I, for one, do not wish to see us go first. But that's just me.

[almaty 19]

2. No. But the fewer members of the 'club' the better.

Why?

I'm serious. If nuclear weapons are an effective mutual deterrent, why do we want a small club?

pakistan is our friend these days,..iran is not ..the only reason

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

2. No. But the fewer members of the 'club' the better.

Why?

I'm serious. If nuclear weapons are an effective mutual deterrent, why do we want a small club?

pakistan is our friend these days,..iran is not ..the only reason

Ok, then why is it ok for India to have nuclear weapons?

When India tested their weapons, they were not 'friends' with the US.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Only if the current nuclear powers are dismantling their arsenals will other countries be convinced it's the right thing to do.

And to take that a bit further, the current nuclear powers will only completely dismantle if they're convinced that the others are really doing the same thing. Not an easy thing to manage, I'm sure. No one wants to go first. I, for one, do not wish to see us go first. But that's just me.

I know. That's why it would have been a good idea to expand the bilateral disarmament talks to include other nations (like France and Britain but all others too). Chirac, imho, is a primary candidate for a madman with red button, and just thinking about India and Pakistan gives me the creeps...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

2. No. But the fewer members of the 'club' the better.

Why?

I'm serious. If nuclear weapons are an effective mutual deterrent, why do we want a small club?

Like other people said. The more people that have them the greater chance one could get in the 'wrong' hands.

[almaty 19]

2. No. But the fewer members of the 'club' the better.

Why?

I'm serious. If nuclear weapons are an effective mutual deterrent, why do we want a small club?

pakistan is our friend these days,..iran is not ..the only reason

Ok, then why is it ok for India to have nuclear weapons?

When India tested their weapons, they were not 'friends' with the US.

cause, like north korea, they have miltary might....

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

FWIW. South Africa had them and got rid of them.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

FWIW. South Africa had them and got rid of them.

Didn't they do that right before finally handing power over to the majority black population?

2. No. But the fewer members of the 'club' the better.

Why?

I'm serious. If nuclear weapons are an effective mutual deterrent, why do we want a small club?

pakistan is our friend these days,..iran is not ..the only reason

Ok, then why is it ok for India to have nuclear weapons?

When India tested their weapons, they were not 'friends' with the US.

cause, like north korea, they have miltary might....

So does Iran.

[lostinlove228 0]

Isreal has them too