Russia may build eight nuclear reactors for Iran

[bryant.coleman]

Russia, Iran committed to expand cooperation

http://www.azernews.az/region/67394.html

More importantly, the Russian officials are looking in to the possibility of reviving the contract to supply Iran with five battalions of the S-300 air-defence systems, cancelled a few years ago by Putin.

[arbitrage001]

Russia, Iran committed to expand cooperation

http://www.azernews.az/region/67394.html

More importantly, the Russian officials are looking in to the possibility of reviving the contract to supply Iran with five battalions of the S-300 air-defence systems, cancelled a few years ago by Putin.

Looks like we can expect major coming within the decade.

[beetcoin]

well that's pretty fucked. as psycho as russia is as a nation, they would probably have thought twice about invading the ukraine if they had nuclear weapons.

So going by that countries such as Libya and Iraq should have been armed with nuclear weapons, to prevent the Americans from invading them. And we should give nukes to North Korea as well.

i'm not saying this country or that should be armed with nuclear weapons. but it does deter countries from invading your own. a nuclear weapon can be as much of a weapon as it is a defensive mechanism.

[bryant.coleman]

i'm not saying this country or that should be armed with nuclear weapons. but it does deter countries from invading your own. a nuclear weapon can be as much of a weapon as it is a defensive mechanism.

The same can be said about the 20-odd countries which were invaded by the US during the last two decades or so. Even now the world is very unsafe, with rogue nations such as Pakistan and DPRK possessing nukes. I don't want any more nations with nuclear capability, especially the current neo-Nazi regime of Ukriane.

[bryant.coleman]

Having nuclear weapons is indeed a very good security insurance (I bet Ukraine wouldn't have the problems it has now with Russia, if it didn't give up the big nuclear arsenal in 1994, in exchange for paper assurances on its territorial integrity, including from Russia).

Possession of nuclear weapons don't guarantee anything. In addition to the nukes, you need sophisticated Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which can accurately target the enemy locations. As far as I know, Ukraine does not even possess a mid-range missile. Even if they get a few missiles from some other nation, the Russians will be able to shot down the missiles before they enter the Russian air-space, with their sophisticated S-300 and S-400 SAM batteries.

[beetcoin]

Having nuclear weapons is indeed a very good security insurance (I bet Ukraine wouldn't have the problems it has now with Russia, if it didn't give up the big nuclear arsenal in 1994, in exchange for paper assurances on its territorial integrity, including from Russia).

Possession of nuclear weapons don't guarantee anything. In addition to the nukes, you need sophisticated Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which can accurately target the enemy locations. As far as I know, Ukraine does not even possess a mid-range missile. Even if they get a few missiles from some other nation, the Russians will be able to shot down the missiles before they enter the Russian air-space, with their sophisticated S-300 and S-400 SAM batteries.

doesn't matter, everyone around the world would be scared of you, especially if you were trying and trying (and getting better at it) like north korea is doing. i guess it would be a great way to make other people "pay you off." even though north korea can't get their nukes very far, no one would even deign to invade their country.

[bryant.coleman]

Even though north korea can't get their nukes very far, no one would even deign to invade their country.

The North Korean ICBM (Taepodong-2) is capable of targeting locations which are up to 6,500 kms away. That means that, important American cities such as SF, LA and Portland are under its range.

[Trading]

The only problem seems to be that its orientation guide is terrible. When the Koreans launch a missile to the Pacific, the Russians and Chinese better run for the bunkers.

[kuroman]

After petroleum and natural gas, nuclear fuel is the most important source of foreign currency for Russia. So Russia might ignore the safety concerns in Iran, for the sake of additional revenue.

http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2013/11/13/rosatom-s-foreign-portfolio-reaches-usd-66-5-billion

There is no safety precaution to take here, Iran already have nuclrear power plants, having more nuclear power plants built under international standard is not an issue at all, and this shouldn't even be a news to be honest, but since it concern Russia, and Iran the news get overblown and put out of context

[bryant.coleman]

The only problem seems to be that its orientation guide is terrible. When the Koreans launch a missile to the Pacific, the Russians and Chinese better run for the bunkers.

From their past missile tests, it can be safely said that the missiles are very accurate. But still, it will cause problems for the Japanese, as the missiles have to be shot over the Japanese air space, to reach California.

[thehun]

It is clear there won't be any foreseeable reduction of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world after what is happening. On the contrary, more and more countries will try to build up their nuclear power to avoid being puppet nations which can be run over by the big powers.

Unless the big powers (US, China, Russia, UK, France and a few others) start disposing of their nukes I don't see any reason why the smaller players should do so. Colonialism is still very present in the third world and developing countries and unless there is a bit of balance these countries will never get out of the hole.

[bryant.coleman]

It is clear there won't be any foreseeable reduction of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world after what is happening. On the contrary, more and more countries will try to build up their nuclear power to avoid being puppet nations which can be run over by the big powers.

There is a big difference between building a nuclear reactor and trying to build nuclear weapons. More and more countries are preferring nuclear energy, as it is the cleanest and cheapest form of energy available right now.

[thehun]

It is clear there won't be any foreseeable reduction of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world after what is happening. On the contrary, more and more countries will try to build up their nuclear power to avoid being puppet nations which can be run over by the big powers.

There is a big difference between building a nuclear reactor and trying to build nuclear weapons. More and more countries are preferring nuclear energy, as it is the cleanest and cheapest form of energy available right now.

Of course it's a big difference, but I don't agree that it's the cleanest or cheapest kind of energy. When calculating the costs most of the time the price if disposing of the residues is overlooked. This might not be an immediate cost to assume but bear in mind that these residues have to be safely stored for centuries as they build up. On the long term it is a very high cost and has a very high environmental impact on  countries where uranium is extracted (just look at Niger and Chad around the areas where the French-managed uranium mines are located).

In other words, the costs might not seem too high for us because they are paid by others.

[Trading]

On the need to have reliable missiles to make an effective detente, there are other ways to deliver a nuclear weapon, including plane or using terrestrial small units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_delivery).

The simple fact that you have a few nuclear weapons upgrades your political and military status. There is a risk that you might be able to kill millions of our citizens.

Anyway, Ukraine had not only soviet nuclear weapons, but also soviet missiles to launch them. The soviets had launching stations on Ukrainian territory.

[bryant.coleman]

Of course it's a big difference, but I don't agree that it's the cleanest or cheapest kind of energy. When calculating the costs most of the time the price if disposing of the residues is overlooked. This might not be an immediate cost to assume but bear in mind that these residues have to be safely stored for centuries as they build up. On the long term it is a very high cost and has a very high environmental impact on  countries where uranium is extracted (just look at Niger and Chad around the areas where the French-managed uranium mines are located).

Nuclear waste storage is getting more and more cheaper now, with the advancement of new technology. And Uranium mines in Russia, Canada and the US adheres to strict environmental standards. Those in Niger does not comply with the environmental rules, as the government is not willing to enforce them on the French mining giants.