What I do know is that it's a Shi'a theocracy, ruled fanatically, and that it has plenty of oil to mak power, so that the Uranium gathered seems like it is very, very unneeded for power, as much as the next Fat Man in line.
posted
I think the trouble with Iran is that it is a minority within the Muslim world (being Shi'a). I don't want to call the whole country paranoid or anything. But, well, I guess I just sort of did. However, it's an understandable paranoia. At least for me.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Time is on the side of change in Iran. There's a large youth movement there with progressive tendencies. Things will change, it might take awhile without help from the outside, but it will happen.
And I don't think it's really fair to deny them nuclear power, and to deny the Europeans the right to sell it to them. Everyone should have the right to nuclear power.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
:recalls fondly the days when to be liberal included opposition to nuclear power: I guess that's why I turned.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is why would they truly need nuclear power when they have so much oil? Sounds like a smoke screen. They're after the bomb.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you make your money off of selling oil and you don't have the same concerns about externalities as the western nations do, which prevents them from exploiting more efficient nuclear energy to its fullest, of course you'd use nuclear power.
For general power, nuclear energy is far better than oil if you don't mind certain externalities (and possibly even if you do), and Iran's economy doesn't involve a lot of the other things oil is used to produce as much (such as plastics). Why would they go with oil when they've got the much cheaper nuclear energy available, particularly when they can sell the oil for more money than the economic benefit of burning it?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |