The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

October 21, 2009 Rod Adams writes:

I think it should be emphasized that a given quantity of enriched uranium can be used for either power plant fuel OR refined into nuclear weapons.

For me, that is a key thought - we should be doing all we can to encourage the insertion of the refined material into fuel rods and then into operational reactor power plants. Once it has been used for just a brief time, it is much harder to handle. Besides, once people start depending on the electricity produced by the plant, they will want to keep it coming. That will limit the appetite for diverting the material; remember, any given quantity can be used for power OR for threatening weapons, not both.

October 21, 2009 MrShorty, Arizona writes:

It seems to be a very difficult negotiation process for us if we take the Muslums at their word. The more death and destruction they can inflict on the “infidels” the greater will be their status and stature to thir Allah.

It’s time for the “religion of peace” to step forth and show what they really believe. With big brother, Russia, standing by their side, there is no reason for them to fear any attack by the West, so they should be more than willing to commit all their uranium for peaceful purposes.

October 21, 2009 DONNELL (NORFOLK VA) writes:

France, Germany,England , United States, Russia, Israel all have nuclear weapns and capability. They are sovereign states. This allows them to chose their own method of defense. Given the history of the afroe-mentioned peoples should any of them have nuclear technology, historucally speaking. Is Iran a sovereign state?

October 21, 2009 Laurence Odhner, aka "The Great Satan", Washington, DC writes:

The cleanest, quickest way to bring down the Iranian nregime is to enforce an airline boycott. Lufthansa, KLM, Air France, etc, must be told they must make a choiuce. They may serve us, or the may serve the illigitimate state sponsor of terrorism, but not both. Nor will we tollerate 3rd countries, i.e. Syria, or Venezuala, picking up the slack, or any nation that allows them to land and be re-fueled will also be boycotted. No nation of 70 million could withstand such a boycott for more than two weeks. Their regime would fall.

October 21, 2009 Louis L Cesar F Levy DAYTON OH writes:

Iran is not the kind to relinquish what he thinks he owned; don’t forget that it’s a hard won pawn in Mahomet chess board.
Sleepy leftists cannot bear really what it takes to bring them in more amenable dispositions.
Russia might in some way want that but will try to trick US or bargain something. The clever Sarkosy will not suffice.
So what?
We, might have other ways…

October 21, 2009 Hamilton Lake, MN writes:

Donnell,

Are you compairing my beloved USA to Russia, Iran, or France?
True we are not perfect, but I’ll stack up the good Americans have done in this world to ANYBODY, EVER!

In case you missed the memo, the reason Iran should not get nukes is because they have openly stated that they plan to wipe another country off the face of the earth!

Does the fact that their President denies the crimes of Nazi Socalist Germany in the 1930-40’s ever taking place mean anything to you?

H.A.L.