Iran Begins Fueling Its First Nuclear Reactor

[Sionnach Glic]

Iran has begun loading fuel into its first nuclear power station in a ceremony attended by Russian officials.

Russia will operate the Bushehr plant in southern Iran, supplying its nuclear fuel and taking away the nuclear waste.

Iran has been subject to four rounds of UN sanctions because of its separate, uranium enrichment programme.

Experts say that as long as the plant is Russian-operated, there is little immediate threat of its fuel being diverted to make bombs.

The West fears Tehran wants to build a nuclear weapon, but Iran insists its plans are for peaceful energy production.
The Bushehr facility has taken 35 years to build and has been plagued by delays.

"Despite all pressure, sanctions and hardships imposed by western nations, we are now witnessing the startup of the largest symbol of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities," Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi told journalists at the plant.

The BBC's Jon Leyne says Iranian officials have promoted Saturday's launch as a victory for the Islamic republic against its enemies. Nationwide celebrations are planned to mark the event.

But Professor Ali Ansari, an Iran expert at the University of St Andrews, in Scotland, said Tehran was likely to exaggerate the importance of the start-up at Bushehr.

"It will obviously have a very theatrical opening but the delays have meant that the power plant is a very old model and the contribution to the national grid is very small," he said.
-----
'Russian-US deal'

The Bushehr plant should begin producing electricity in about a month, experts say.

It is not seen by analysts as posing a significant proliferation risk.

The uranium fuel it will use is well below the enrichment level needed for a nuclear weapon. Weapons-grade uranium must be enriched by more than 90%. In contrast, the uranium at Bushehr is enriched by 3.5%.

The Bushehr fuel has been supplied by Russia, although Iran is already producing its own uranium enriched to fuel grade.

It has also begun a pilot program to enrich uranium to 20% which it says is needed for a medical research reactor.

It is that programme that has alarmed the West and Israel.

Reports in Washington suggested that the US lifted its objections to the completion of the plant at Bushehr as the price for Russia's vote in the latest round of sanctions against Iran.

Western officials have been changing their tune recently, our correspondent says, describing Bushehr as an example of the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy, to which Iran is entitled.

In a defiant statement on Friday, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation Ali Akbar Salehi said the country would continue uranium enrichment, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported.

Referring to the Bushehr plant, he said: "Suppose we receive the required nuclear fuel for the plant from the Russians for the next 10 years, what are we going to do for the next 30 to 50 years?"

He said Iran could produce up to 30 tons of enriched uranium at its Natanz plant once the necessary centrifuges are installed at the site.

Source

[Aaron]

Conservative fear campaign in 3...2...1...

[lcpl seilicki]

as long as the reactor is used for peaceful purposes I don't have a problem with it.

[McAvoy]

Having a nuclear reactor I have no problem with. It isn't that a much of a jump from nuclear reactors to nuclear bombs. US and the Soviets did it in reverse, bomb first then reactors.

[Tyyr]

Having a nuclear reactor I have no problem with. It isn't that a much of a jump from nuclear reactors to nuclear bombs. US and the Soviets did it in reverse, bomb first then reactors.

Sorry, try again.

Chicago Pile 1

[McAvoy]

Oops, forgot about that.

[lcpl seilicki]

With at least 1 aircraft carrier on station at all times in the Indian ocean, Iran would have to f*cking retarded to say "we have nuclear weapons" on the world stage. They would have to be suicidal to use one, we would blast that country down to the bedrock. Then use it as test range for our new weapons.

[Sionnach Glic]

With at least 1 aircraft carrier on station at all times in the Indian ocean, Iran would have to f*cking retarded to say "we have nuclear weapons" on the world stage.

How so? The US isn't going to suddenly launch an unprovoked attack on Iran just because they got The Bomb. Russia has business interests in the region so they won't be interested in rocking the boat. Pakistan and India might be a bit concerned due to proximity with them, but neither of them have much to fear from Iran, and thus no real reason to take any action. China and North Korea simply aren't going to give a damn, and France and Britain are just going to stay as far away from the situation as possible. The only country that's even remotely likely to launch a pre-emptive strike is Israel, and even they're unlikely to do such a thing.

If Iran does get nukes we'll see nothing more than a minor increase in sabre-rattling from both sides.

They would have to be suicidal to use one, we would blast that country down to the bedrock. Then use it as test range for our new weapons.

Personally, I've always questioned the whole "any country that uses nukes would be instantly gang-mauled by every other nuclear power".

For example, let's say that at some point in the near future Iran gets into a war with Turkmenistan, which eventualy leads to them nuking Ashgabat. Precisely what will happen? Would the US actualy launch a nuclear strike of their own? For what purpose? Any US president who did respond by glassing Iran would go down in the history books as one of the greatest butchers in history, as Iran did nothing to provoke or harm America. And given the dubious legitimacy of such a strike the US would probably suffer a massive blow to its international relations, not to mention turning the entire Middle East even more against them. I suppose it would depend heavily on just who's in charge, but I just can't see the US suddenly jumping into a war in which they have no interest or stakes in such a drastic and bloody way.

So if not the US, who else? Russia might be pissed at a nuke getting set off in a country bordering them, but I can't see them doing much more than the US - particularly since they'd be very wary of getting involved in a nuclear fashion lest they provoke the US. China probably wouldn't give a damn. France and Britain would be staying as far away from that mess as possible, perhaps sending a strongly worded letter to Ahmadinejad. India would probably be concerned but they're unlikely to do much themselves. Pakistan and North Korea will be trying their best to help everyone else forget that they ever had nukes at all. Again, the only possible candidate for a retaliatory strike would be Israel, and that's still quite an unlikely step for them.

All in all I can't see much more happening than governments across the world expressing their outrage against Iran's actions. The UN will probably hammer more sactions into Iran and try and force an end to the hypothetical war. And then the world becomes a much more dangerous place when people realise that a nuclear strike may not necessarily be met with immediate retaliation from other nations.

[Tsukiyumi]

...gang-mauled...

One point for Rochey for not going with the less tasteful analogy.

[Deepcrush]

...gang-mauled...

One point for Rochey for not going with the less tasteful analogy.

He just pussed out of it is all...

[Tsukiyumi]

...gang-mauled...

One point for Rochey for not going with the less tasteful analogy.

He just pussed out of it is all...

I didn't say whether it was a positive or negative point.

[Deepcrush]