Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Did you read the article?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
If you are not going to acknowledge the possibility that the entire premise of the article which is our own destruction is possible, then you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion. Why did you even respond?
|
There's no point in reading the article.
I'll go ahead and take credit for another Thread Kill now.
Quote:
|
Undoubtedly, a country that is floating on oil, and has a plentiful supply of domestic energy, does not need nuclear power.
|
And wow, at the top of the web-page it declares:
Financial Sense®
Applying Common Sense to the Markets
Let's start with the double-standard:
So according to the idiot author, what's his name? JR Nyquist, yes, clearly an expert in double standards, Iran can only have a nuclear program when someone like a shah holds dictatorial power.
As an economist or "expert" in finance, Nyquist is a dumb-ass and has zero understanding of either.
Nyquist ignores all of the following facts:
1) Iran will become a net-importer of oil ~ 2015 which will tax world oil supply and drive prices up
2) Iran's hydro-electric power capacity is maxed out.
3) Iran' electrical power plants use oil and natural gas.
4) Iran has minimal water resources.
5) Iran has had an unemployment rate in the 20+% for decades.
6) Iran is a net-importer of food.
Iran's economic goals should be to:
1) reduce the perennial 20+% unemployment to <10%
2) become a net-exporter of food
3) remain a net-exporter of oil
4) increase water supply
5) reduce dependence on oil and natural gas for electricity
Iran's economic goals can only be achieved through nuclear power.
Because that is true, what negotiating leverage does the US have over Iran? None. What does the US possibly have to offer to Iran? Nothing, unless the US wants to give Iran free oil, free natural gas, free food, free water and $Billions for investment for economic expansion.
What government in the right mind
wants 20+% unemployment year after year after year?
What government in the right mind
wants to be a net-importer of food and a net-importer of oil?
Now everyone can see how stupid Nyquist really is.
Iran can decrease unemployment, while simultaneously increasing food production to the point of self-sustainability and then to the point of being a net-exporter and reaping profits, but only if it gets more water.
The only way Iran can get more water is by using desalinization plants which are heavily energy intensive, meaning they consume megawatts of electricity.
Iran should build more oil and natural gas-fired power plants? That is stupid when Iran is sitting on a huge supply of uranium ore. Iran can build one single nuclear reactor to power 9-12 desalinization plants on the coast, and that is in fact the sole purpose of one of the dual-reactors at Bushwehr, which is something Nyquist totally overlooks, because he is an horrid economist.
Iran can use that water to irrigate the entire Iranian Plateau and bring it to life agriculturally, reducing unemployment while increasing food production shifting Iran from a net-importer to a net-exporter.
Iran can also generate surplus electrical power for and export it to neighboring countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to help expedite the development of those countries.
This claim...
Quote:
|
Undoubtedly, a country that is floating on oil, and has a plentiful supply of domestic energy, does not need nuclear power.
|
...is completely refuted and any competent economist should see that.
Quote:
|
The question is whether a certain military action will be taken or not.
|
That question is irrelevant.
It's easy for those pushing an agenda to prey on the fear and ignorance of others. Plutonium production requires loading a reactor with HEU at 3%-5%, yet the IAEA report clearly states in no uncertain terms that Iran is enriching uranium to 20%.
That is clear and compelling proof that Iran is not seeking plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. If anything, it would appear Iran is trying to produce thorium, which would only prove that Iran is using nuclear power for peaceful purpose.
Perhaps the “major achievements in the nuclear domain” Nyquist wrings his hands over is a thorium nuclear reactor.
Um, gosh, doesn't India have a thorium reactor? Isn't China into thorium reactors?
Get it?
Man the ignorance is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
The Telegraph calls thorium reactors "safe nuclear" and the buzz-word referring to thorium reactors is "green nuclear."
It would make economic and financial sense for Iran to trade thorium for thorium reactor technology, or other technology, but Nyquist is way too stupid to see that.
Bombing Iran's nuclear power plants and their heavy water facility will neither halt nor destroy their ability to produce nuclear weapons. It will only halt Iran's attempt at producing plutonium nuclear weapons, but as you can see, the evidence provided by the IAEA clearly demonstrates that Iran is not attempting plutonium production.
Do you want to know what the US really fears most?
The US fears that Iran will develop economically and create a stable Middle Class.
And why would the US fear that?
Because once a country has a stable Middle Class, it is nearly impossible for the US to take any actions to overthrow the government, or interfere in the economy, or interfere in the country socially or politically.
And a stable Middle Class in Iran would only push for more diversity in world trade currency, meaning the likelihood is even greater that Iran will shift to basket currencies and never return to the US Dollar as a trade currency.
Anyway, as I've demonstrated, the author's premise is flawed, and then he cherry picks info and rants on a religion that he knows nothing about.
Smirking...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
