| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Kerry Advisor: We should send Iran nuclear fuel! |
| 2004-08-02 |
| EFL & Hat tip to LittleGreenBalls James P. Rubin, senior foreign-policy adviser to the campaign, sat down in Detroit with NEWSWEEK's Richard Wolffe to explain what would be different under a Kerry administration: John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration's. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed. Emphasis, mine. |
| Posted by:Dragon Fly |
| #20 So we would actually give the Iranians a vital component for their WMD program. Then there would be no debating whether they had acquired that component. Kerry has obvously learned a valuble lesson from GW's Iraq experience. He has figured out the only way to take all question out of the quality of our intelligence. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-08-02 8:06:33 PM |
| #19 MHW: It's expensive and time consuming, but it appears to be a significant method for North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran, and the various known and unknown nations of the Khan Proliferation Shopping Network, to gain the material for their first nuclear bombs. I believe the standard game plan is to make uranium gun-style bombs, and then after you're presented the rest of the world with a fait accompli, you go ahead and finish your special-purpose plutonium transmutation reactor, and make bombs that can fit on a scud derivative. As usual, Den Beste has all the nitty-gritty details. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-08-02 5:31:13 PM |
| #18 And as Den Beste explained, plutonium is easy to remove from spent fuel rods. Plutonium that can easily be used for bombs |
| Posted by: Chemist 2004-08-02 5:04:51 PM |
| #17 fwiw: den Beste discussed the subject a few days ago: "But let's be very clear about something: all existing civilian nuclear power plants produce plutonium when in operation, even though they don't produce as much as breeder reactors." (much) more here http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/07/Nuclearpowerandnuclearwea.shtml |
| Posted by: Anonymous5970 2004-08-02 2:45:10 PM |
| #16 "Rogue states"? What advisor has he been talking to on this, Ben Affleck? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-08-02 2:07:35 PM |
| #15 1. Yes it is nuclear fuel. 2. Nuclear fuel for electricity producing reactors is different from nuclear fuel used for bombs. It is difficult to make bomb fuel out of nuclear electricity fuel. Yes, it can be done, but its expensive and time consuming. In the NKor case, they simply kept a few centrifuges and other assets going while taking the nuclear electicity fuel. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-08-02 2:06:58 PM |
| #14 ...he's probably pretending to operate from the paradigm where "rogue states" can only get weapons-grade fuel from plutonium, and not from enriching low-grade uranium in centrifuges... Or he's operating from an alternate universe where you can't produce plutonium in an ordinary nuclear reactor. Oh, but: ...Kerry’s proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel... Ah, so the IAEA would go in and remove the spent fuel, by force if necessary. It's bound to work! |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2004-08-02 2:02:22 PM |
| #13 Very fuckin' stupid, evidently. From Instapundit: On domestic issues, Kerry gave a "rock hard" pledge not to raise middle-class taxes if he becomes president, though he said a national emergency or war could change that. Reminded that the country is at war already, Kerry said, "We're going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do what we need to do for our economy, we're going to grow the tax base of our country." Here's a shovel, Johnny. Keep digging. Oh, you brought your own? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-08-02 1:39:02 PM |
| #12 If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. How fuckin' stupid is this guy? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-08-02 1:26:47 PM |
| #11 There is an update at LGF.com. From the sKerry website itself: Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry’s proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Enjoy! |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-08-02 1:25:02 PM |
| #10 I don't think he meant oil. I think he meant nuclear fuel, which is what Russia was providing. One thing to mention: he's probably pretending to operate from the paradigm where "rogue states" can only get weapons-grade fuel from plutonium, and not from enriching low-grade uranium in centrifuges, like Pakistan and North Korea did, and Libya and others were planning to do. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-08-02 1:07:47 PM |
| #9 a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union WTF???The dems had a very unique chance to change history when they had the prez and the congress in the early 90's. This is when Nunn and Lugar were pushing for this and they were ignored by the party in power - the democrats! |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-08-02 11:30:24 AM |
| #8 DING! You are correct, Angie. What do we have for her, Johnny? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-08-02 11:21:57 AM |
| #7 BB, The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. The point is that it's okay if Iran gets fissile material as long as it isn't surreptitiously, which means that he is indeed talking about nuclear material. Also, the fuel in question the past several months that the Russians would supply is nuclear material. Since the Russians don't have a great deal of refining capacity on the Iranian border, they aren't talking about Fuel Oil #2. So, me thinks the lizards have read Mr. Rubin correctly, and Mr. Rubin is reading the Iranians very poorly. |
| Posted by: dreadnought 2004-08-02 11:20:54 AM |
| #6 Given the bio in the last sentence, just why did you expect it to make sense? This is 1994 redux. We should have leveled the Norks then and we should let the Iranians know that we conside the development of nukes by them to be an act that threatens our most important national interest. If they want war, let's let them have it. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-08-02 11:20:40 AM |
| #5 Baltic Blog, I wondered about that too. But I could not fathom why Iran would need oil from us. The whole thing is badly worded. I wonder if some words were left out. It really doesn't make sense as it is, from any perspective. If this is the James P. Rubin who was Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of State under Clinton, he's married to Christiane Amanpour. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2004-08-02 11:17:02 AM |
| #4 Sounds oddly familiar to NoKo deal that failed to work. Sure, we appease you; you screw us. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-08-02 10:58:49 AM |
| #3 One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Er, there's a problem here already: what "force" is this guy talking about? More worthless (and toothless) U.N. resolutions? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-02 10:58:14 AM |
| #2 I think he's talking about non-nuclear energy. Since they are swimming in oil, that would be the "bluff called". Looks to me like the lizards at LGF need to read more carefully. |
| Posted by: Baltic Blog 2004-08-02 10:57:49 AM |
| #1 And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Sounds like good fodder for a campaign commercial. They should be sure to couple it with the speech given by an Iranian minister that said (paraphrasing): 'once Iran has a nuclear weapon, the question of Israel will become moot.' |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-08-02 10:56:56 AM |