|
|
Now Who Put that There?
Someone forgot to do a final check over the nuclear blueprints Iran just released. You'd think the explicit mention of nuclear warheads in documents released by Iran would have just about everyone else flipping out, but I can find very little mention of it on, say, the Washington Post's website. Am I missing something really basic here?
Keep in mind we're not the only ones damned unhappy with Iran's little pet project. The French have quite explicitly warned Iran it too would take whatever steps necessary to prevent the mullahs from getting their own bomb. Wouldn't it be a surprise if it turned out to be French Typhoons that did the deed?
Via Instapundit.
Either BBC or CNN reported it earlier this morning. I flip through both channels throughout the day, but I can't remember which one it was.
Posted by: Mark on November 14, 2007 04:37 PMThat's because those "Iranian nuclear blueprints" are actually useless for making bombs, and there's already enough public information on making bombs available that Iran would not need them. See IranAffais.com for details.
Posted by: hass on November 14, 2007 08:48 PMHass - so what? If they were useless, why not turn them over two years ago when they were discovered? Why purchase many, many more centrifuges than are necessary? Why even have material that implicates your country in the slightest? What else are they hiding?
And why use a biased source to support your point?
Posted by: Ron on November 15, 2007 09:13 AMThey haven't "purchased more centrifuges than necessary" - they in fact need 50,000 of them, and have made 3000 thus far. This was all part of Iran's nuclear energy development plan which started back in the 1970s, with the full support and encouragement of the United States.
As for "biased sources" - note that the post relies on links from the BBC and Los Angeles Times.
Posted by: hass on November 15, 2007 11:25 AMI'm not sure that's true - where do you get that 50,000 number? And if said program was started with our full support, why are they buying them on the black market? Then, to top it off, why do they need 50K centrifuges? Why not simply go with the current crop of high efficiency nuclear reactors that don't need the uranium to be that enriched?
The source is still biased, regardless of what it quotes. Quotes can be taken out of context and used very selectively. Note that article about the pro-wrestler (posted a day or so ago on this very site).
Posted by: ron on November 15, 2007 11:53 AM