Mohamed Elbarradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned that as many as 30 countries have technology to develop nuclear arms " in a very short time". " The knowledge
is out of the tube.. both for peaceful purpose and unfortunately not for peaceful purposes".
Their are nine countries knon to have nuclear weapons (and to have used them) - Russia China, France, United States, Britain,Israel,Pakistan,India and now North Korea
According to U.N. officials, countries considering developing nuclear programs in the near future- Egypt, Bangladesh, Scotland, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Nambima, Maldova, Nigeria, Poland, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam and Yemen
Brazil, Iran and other nations- are currently working to develop uranium enrichment capability
Australia, Argentina and South Africa- recently announced they are considering developing enrichment programs to sell fuel to states that want to generate electricity with nuclear reactors.
Japan- says it has no plans to develop atomic weapons, but it could make them at short notice.
South Korea- a few years ago was caught coonducting secret experiments on making highly enriched uranium that could be used on warheads.
Malcolm lets cut to the chase you are a liar and I can prove it. You made this "report" from Mr Elbarradei up. Firstly Elbarradei does not call himself the chief he is the director general, secondly I doubt that the IAEA director general would be so stupid as to lie and say that all members of the "nuclear club" have used thier nukes, You mentions Scotland again, so now Mr Elbarradei has broken up the UK and showed complete ignorance about where Britains nuclear detterent is held, Moldova this would be the same Moldova who confirmed to the IAEA on May 2006 that it is commited to non proliferation right that same country? Also I am surpised that he mentioned Ghana when he must have full knowledge that a country like Ghana a country that is heavily dependent on aid cannot afford a nuclear program.
And then I checked on the IAEA website surely if the director general had spouted this BS he or his organisation would have put it on thier webpage. So I checked the press releases and news page and even the director generals page and guess what, shock horror this report does not exsist. How do you explain all of this malcolm?
lodgebo said this in post #2 : Malcolm lets cut to the chase you are a liar and I can prove it. You made this "report" from Mr Elbarradei up. Firstly Elbarradei does not call himself the chief he is the director general, secondly I doubt that the IAEA director general would be so stupid as to lie and say that all members of the "nuclear club" have used thier nukes, You mentions Scotland again, so now Mr Elbarradei has broken up the UK and showed complete ignorance about where Britains nuclear detterent is held, Moldova this would be the same Moldova who confirmed to the IAEA on May 2006 that it is commited to non proliferation right that same country? Also I am surpised that he mentioned Ghana when he must have full knowledge that a country like Ghana a country that is heavily dependent on aid cannot afford a nuclear program.
And then I checked on the IAEA website surely if the director general had spouted this BS he or his organisation would have put it on thier webpage. So I checked the press releases and news page and even the director generals page and guess what, shock horror this report does not exsist. How do you explain all of this malcolm?
Your last question should be ask first before you criticize and discredit my threads. You have pattern of doing this for subjects you disagree with or not familiar with.
This info came from article in nwespaper. In this era of nuclear weapons /wars , I thought this information was important . I will give you name of article and writer , so you can verify and accept fact you don't know everthing. http://www.iaea.org/
Don't need a name of the article or the writer just give me a link, something else you NEVER do.
However it changes nothing fact is fact. Only 1 member of the nuclear club has used nukes, Scotland is part of the UK and as such has no indepndent nuclear detterent and has no plans for one, Moldova remains commited to this day opting out of the nuclear club, and Ghana is to poor and to reliant on aid to afford a nuclear progarm either defensive or civil, looking at your post again Namibia and Bangladesh are probably in the same boat as Ghan and Viertnam even if it could afford a nuclear defense program would not as it does not want to be the straw that broke the camels back in the inevitable Pacific rim arms race it would cause.
Oh yeah another little heads up regardinmg this pieceof claptrap Inidia, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel do not offcially count as in the nuclear club because they have all not sines the NPT and because Isarel and N.Korea have not offically admiited or proved that they have nukes. What or your interviewer is claiming is that Mr Barradei does not know all of this?
Anyway give me the link show me the journalist who claimed all of this, the paper he writes for and the date on which the interview occured and of course it shuld go without saying a copy of the transcript.
While you are doing that may I suggest we put this pathetic Scottish nuke issue to bed below is a link on the UK's nuclear deterent. You will notice that the link shows where the sube were bilt, where they are based and which country / state they belong to.
That's 2 links that lodgebo has provided to support his claims, Malcolm. Will you do the same and provide a link, if the article is on the internet? Just copy the address in it's entirety and paste it into your reply, and we should be good with that. What is required for a discussion like this, is references to be provided. As it stands right now, your initial post reads as if it is YOU that is making the claims. If a journalist did it, please give that journalist credit for their work by either giving their name and article title, or even better, providing a link to the article if it's located on the internet.
Sierradaddy said this in post #5 : That's 2 links that lodgebo has provided to support his claims, Malcolm. Will you do the same and provide a link, if the article is on the internet? Just copy the address in it's entirety and paste it into your reply, and we should be good with that. What is required for a discussion like this, is references to be provided. As it stands right now, your initial post reads as if it is YOU that is making the claims. If a journalist did it, please give that journalist credit for their work by either giving their name and article title, or even better, providing a link to the article if it's located on the internet.
I must have thrown away the article and I cannot find it on computer but i will find in library.
Until I find article, ask lodgebo about there Trident Nuclear Program? Why conservative media covering this up? In this scary nuclear era, why is this program growing when the majority Scotland people want it shut down? Why is lodgebo trying to cover this fact up? Lodgebo says Scotland is nuclear free but 4 NUCLEAR SUBMARINES that carry 160 NUCLEAR WEAPONS were revealed in SCOTLAND?
I must have thrown away the article and I cannot find it on computer but i will find in library.
Until I find article, ask lodgebo about there Trident Nuclear Program? Why conservative media covering this up? In this scary nuclear era, why is this program growing when the majority Scotland people want it shut down? Why is lodgebo trying to cover this fact up? Lodgebo says Scotland is nuclear free but 4 NUCLEAR SUBMARINES that carry 160 NUCLEAR WEAPONS were revealed in SCOTLAND?
Malcolm you really are slow on the uptake aren't you son I am guessing that you are probably around 15 but then again a 15 year old would have understood by.
It's blatantly obvious you have not read the link I posted and it is blatnatly obvious that you are try to use the Scottish thing ot deflect attention from your blatant lies about the IAEA ( lost the artcle yeah right)
Oh and another thing I have NEVER said Scotland is nuclear free ever so don't you start telling lies about me. Why would I even say that we have nucler powere stations and the UK's fleet of nuclear subs is based in sCotland so why would I say we are nucler free? go post the link in which I say that Scotlan is nuclear free or retract this lie.
Oh and your links actually back ME up thanks Maclolm yep the ban the bomb talks about Tony's nuclear ambition and that Tony would be Tony Blair the leader of the UK ibcluding Scotland if the Trdent program was a solely Scottish issue what has Tony got to do with it? < CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION
Anyway I am not going to waste my time on this until you read the link something you have not done because if you did you would realise that you are wrong (again) so read the link and get educated ok. Also they were revealed Man you act like they were hidden away somewhere it's common knowledge where they are. Just read the link.
Now onto your other points and just show how little you know. FDirst of all you know nothing about Scottish media in that we have very little conservative media up here but everyone knows that Trident's 25 years are up and yes there has been opposition not just from Scottish people but Briths people because it is a British weapon. Howevere Malcolm must have pooled all 5.5 million of us because he knows that majority want it gone and that's simply not the case it is a split for example I think we should renew the weapons.
Maclom here is what you can do to put this to bed once and for all why don't you use the links you posted to e - mail CND and ask them if Scotland or the UK owns the nuclear weapons?
Then post thier reply here to prove you are wrong again.
lodgebo said this in post #9 : Maclom here is what you can do to put this to bed once and for all why don't you use the links you posted to e - mail CND and ask them if Scotland or the UK owns the nuclear weapons?
Then post thier reply here to prove you are wrong again.
This will be put to bed when Scotland stops allowing itself to be used for harboring nuclear power plants and having nuclear submarines revealed in its water. As long as Scotland continues to allow itself to be used for development of weapons and allow them to be revealed in its country, Scotland has to be held accoutable. Scotland allows owners of Trident nuclear weapons program to use country for development but feels country should not share any responsibility for the consequences? In this country this is wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Lodgebo stop being patrotic and use your common sense anay;ze promblem
I am 200% against anything beginning with nuclear and one country cannot be allowed to dictate nuclear policy! Exspecially if the country has used them against another country
Nuclear weapons made today are more powerful than the ones used in the past . Nuclear waste has to be contain for years and have to find somewhere to put it because more is created everyday. Imagine if you were unable to throw out your thrash for 90+ years. A nuclear program is expensive and we are going to have to pay for it. When, Why, How will they be be used? Nuclear war only guarantees death and destruction.
This will be put to bed when Scotland stops allowing itself to be used for harboring nuclear power plants and having nuclear submarines revealed in its water.
We allow it for two reasons 1. the best place for the Subs is Rosyth there is not a better place in the UK to hold them that's a fact Liverpool base is not owned by the Navy, Devonport is being downgraded and it is common sense ( security wise) not have the subs repair base and normal base in the same area plus the fact it is a rather coingested base and not good for subs, naval base Ports mouth s ceratinly not feasible as it encompasses the Portsmouth harbour and a major shipping route. So the safest place for thes subs is Scotland.
2. nuclear power stations well no more will be built in Scotland but at this monent they give power to the nation and they are cleaner ( emission terms) than coal.
As long as Scotland continues to allow itself to be used for development of weapons and allow them to be revealed in its country, Scotland has to be held accoutable.
Sorry mate wrong again nuclear weapons are not developed in Scotland that's England you are thinking of.
Scotland allows owners of Trident nuclear weapons program to use country for development but feels country should not share any responsibility for the consequences? In this country this is wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Lodgebo stop being patrotic and use your common sense anay;ze promblem
See wrong again Scotland are co owners 4 (every country of the UK is a co - owner) of Trident and as a result we do take responsibility and again where do you get the idea Scotland is being used as devolpment country?. Also Maclolm what are the consquences? the area is safe and secure do you know that every so often crack SAS units and units from 45 Command have a go at breaking into the base and "hijacking a sub" never been succesful it's secure take my word for it as a former member of 45. Do you know in all the years the base has been there we have had 1 close call and that was an outside contractor screwing up.
So the base is secure, the subs are well maintained, we follow the UK's guidelines on issues like these which are some of the toughest in the country what else are we meant to do to appease you?
I am 200% against anything beginning with nuclear and one country cannot be allowed to dictate nuclear policy! Exspecially if the country has used them against another country.
Well the only country to have used nukes is your country not mine so maybe that's something you should take up with your congressman/woman. As for here in the UK nobody dictates anything to anybody. The MOD and the admirallity make joint decsions on the movement of subs e.g one nuclear sub is always out on patrol. In terms of the next generation of nukes well again same situation there will be a debate possibly a vote and then we decide the best place for the nukes. if it is sub marines is a ready made secure base not the best place for them?
Nuclear weapons made today are more powerful than the ones used in the past .
True but there are a lot more failsafes.
Nuclear waste has to be contain for years and have to find somewhere to put it because more is created everyday. Imagine if you were unable to throw out your thrash for 90+ years.
I am aware of the problem of nuclear waste and nobody has a complete answer but the fact reamins it is cleaner and more relaible than the alternatives at this moment in time.
A nuclear program is expensive and we are going to have to pay for it.
Well what is the alternative? dirty coal or unrelaible renewables?
When, Why, How will they be be used? Nuclear war only guarantees death and destruction.
Well they have never been used have they only the US has used them. They are a deterrent a warning. If the US or UK disarmed then countries like N. Korea could fire thier nukes at us and know we could not retaliate, the fact we have missiles pointed at him is probably what is putting him off.
The fact is that in the hisroty of nuclear wepons they have been used on one occasion. Since then there have been no accidents or nuclear wars.
As for nuclear power stations I would love to live in a country where we use renewables and it is happening in Scotland wht with wave and wind power the way forward but it is not 100% reliable at this moment in time. In the histroy of nuclear stations we have had 2 serious accidents and as time has gone on serciryt and safety have become paramount I imagine in the next 75 years the nuclear stations will be obselete but until then we have a stark choice nucler power stations or coal what is your pick?
Intresting issue going back to the original story. Ghana was today elected as the head country of the AU finally removing Sudan who gained back to back election victories despite allowing genocide in Darfur. Anyway the point is this if Malcolms story is rempotly true does it not shoe the ignorance of the AU by appointing Gahn as the head country when it is developing nuclear wepaons also why did Ghana not declare this before the election surely that makes it a secret nuclear weapons program and is that's the case what do we do about it sanctions probaly maybe rmove all aid for starters.
lodgebo said this in post #12 : Intresting issue going back to the original story. Ghana was today elected as the head country of the AU finally removing Sudan who gained back to back election victories despite allowing genocide in Darfur. Anyway the point is this if Malcolms story is rempotly true does it not shoe the ignorance of the AU by appointing Gahn as the head country when it is developing nuclear wepaons also why did Ghana not declare this before the election surely that makes it a secret nuclear weapons program and is that's the case what do we do about it sanctions probaly maybe rmove all aid for starters.
What argument your trying to make? You admit Scotland is harboring nuclear programs. You admit Scotland has responsibility for the Trident Nuclear Program?You say Scotland is perfect location for developing nuclear submarines?
You didn't give information on nuclear waste? Where is waste that, relative to human life, cannot be destroyed and nuclear waste accumulates. Where is the nuclear waste being held? Do you remember what happen in Chernobyl? Does Scotland still want its independence from England?
What argument your trying to make? You admit Scotland is harboring nuclear programs.
No I do not admit anything Scotland is not harbouring anything the UK has been as transparent as possiblt about it's location of nuclear submarines, howevere if the intrests of security the location of the actual weapons is a closely guarded secret. Howevere a little bit of research and an average amount of intelligence would point to Scotland as the location for Britains weapons would it not?
You admit Scotland has responsibility for the Trident Nuclear Program?
No I am not saying that. Yes the Tridents are based in Scotland but they are British owned as a result are the responsability of the British government in this case it fall under the high admirality Based I think in Portsmouth and the Ministry of defence based in London. And the only person whou could authorise a strike is either Tony Blair the leader of Britain not Scotland ( although he is Scottish) and if he could not do it John Prescott god help us all Prescott with his podgy finger on the button.
You say Scotland is perfect location for developing nuclear submarines?
Again not what I said I never said anything about Scotlnd developing nuclear subs in fact I went out of my way to tell you they are not built or designed in Scotland. What I said was that if the new nuclear program involves Submarines then surely the current base is the best place for them in trms of cost, safety and strategy. Oh FYI the new nukes may be launched by Eurofighter from an English RAF base.
You didn't give information on nuclear waste? Where is waste that, relative to human life, cannot be destroyed and nuclear waste accumulates. Where is the nuclear waste being held? Do you remember what happen in Chernobyl?
I am well aware of Chernoybl and three mile Isalnd as well but again how many accidents since then Malcolm all of zero I belive. As for waste nobody denies it is a problem but it is a problem we have 300- 500 years to solve and a problme that people are working on every day.
Does Scotland still want its independence from England?
Well that depends on who you ask the election is less than 90 days away and the arguements for both sides are coming up. Unfortunalty I have not manged to go and ask all 5 million Scots what they think ( some wehere out to the shope or on holiday or hiding nukes or something when I called) but I still think the split would 55 - 45 pro independence, I think, the Scots have a terrible habit of waiting until the last minute to make thier minds up.
Two interesting articles in the Guardian today. The first a report by the IPCC, a body that brings together 2,500 scientists from 30 countries around the world, states that it is 90% likely that it is our pollution causing global warming.
And secondly, a report on how the energy industry, with close links to the Bush admin, is offering $10,000 to scientists to undermine the report.
quote:
Global warming is "very likely" to have been caused by human activity, the leading international body studying climate change said in a report today.
The likelihood that the phenomenon has been created by the burning of fossil fuels and other actions is greater than 90%, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in its fourth report.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
01-18-2007 11:55 PM
this would be the same Moldova who confirmed to the IAEA on May 2006 that it is commited to non proliferation right that same country? Also I am surpised that he mentioned Ghana when he must have full knowledge that a country like Ghana a country that is heavily dependent on aid cannot afford a nuclear program.
this report does not exsist. How do you explain all of this malcolm?
