The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Two: Iran’s Right to Militarily Defend Itself.
Updated March 7th 2006.
The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ attitudes towards Iran concerning Nuclear Proliferation.It is also hypocritical for zog governments to possess nuclear weapons and yet deny iran the same rights.
The israelis in the bush administration are squealing about iran’s move towards civilian nuclear power because they fear nuclear proliferation and yet iran is the only country they are picking on over this issue, "The Bush administration continues an escalating spiral toward conflict with Iran, using Iran's nuclear policy as its primary focus. At the same time, the administration is reducing restrictions on other emerging nuclear states that pose a far more serious and immediate threat to world peace. The United States also recently removed nuclear restrictions imposed upon India for their thinly disguised nuclear weapons program. Much of the impetus for this reportedly came from the head of the export licensing arm of the Commerce Department, who is lobbying for a job as ambassador to India and who has a very cozy relationship with the Defense Department's neoconservative leadership. Brazil is now defying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding questions over its nuclear program, which is not benign. This would violate the long-standing U.S. determination to keep South America nuclear- free. And the U.S. response? No seismic rumbles of the kind directed toward Iran are apparent here. And forget South Korean enrichment efforts - clearly they were "just a mistake."" (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.
cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/EDG
B790KB01.DTL September 30, 2004); "New Delhi is keen to vote with the U.S., despite domestic opposition, in order to finalize and implement a nuclear cooperation deal initialed with Washington last July. This would effectively legitimize India's nuclear weapons and help resume civilian nuclear commerce with it." (Praful Bidwai ‘Iran Confrontation in the Cards’ http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=8481 February 1, 2006); "In a now-all-too familiar display of hypocrisy, the IAEA resolution which Bush has now successfully strongarmed India to endorse, sends the Iran issue to the UN Security Council to punish it for its so-called breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and lack of confidence that it is not trying to make weapons. The text of the resolution expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program.'' It recalls "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations'' to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes," and it requests IAEA Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, to "report to the Security Council" with steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions. So, India, a producer of nuclear weapons and a nonsignatory of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, will get nuclear favours from Bush in exchange for supporting Bush's ramp-up for a seemingly imminent attack on Iran, an NPT signatory, for which there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program." (Ingmar Lee ‘The Smiling Buddha Blast and Canada's CANDU Snafu’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lee02272006.html February 27, 2006); "President Bush effectively tore up the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by announcing this week that "as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states." Translation? Even though India refused to be a Party to the NPT, because India has developed and tested nuclear weapons, India should now "acquire the same benefits and advantages" that the NPT bestows on the five "nuclear-weapons states" – US, UK, France, Russia and China. Specifically, even though all NPT signatories not having nukes are required to subject all their nuclear programs to a full-scope Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the five NWS are allowed to unilaterally decide which of their nuclear programs – if any – they subject to such an agreement. Prime Minister Singh announced India was prepared to "assume the same responsibilities and practices" of the five NWS." (Gordon Prather ‘Tearing Up the NPT’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=6729 July 23, 2005).
Iran’s Military Justification for Acquiring Nuclear Weapons.
Iran believes it is militarily justified in acquiring nuclear weapons for its own defence. It is surrounded to the west by the jews-only state in palestine which possesses nuclear weapons; to the east by pakistan and india which have nuclear weapons; and to the north by russia which has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons.
In recent years it has also been surrounded by america. Firstly, through its military occupation of afghanistan and iraq. And, secondly, through the establishment of military bases in many countries surrounding iran, "The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005). There are also military bases in kuwait and the united arab emirates. "The reality is that there are U.S. troops in Dubai, over 1,000 of them, and the United Arab Emirates (of which Dubai is a part) is one of our staunchest allies in the region. We have also signed a defense pact with Abu Dhabi, and the emirate has been used as a base from which to pre-position U.S. troops bound for Iraq. Our planes refueled at Dubai's al-Dhafra air base on their way to patrol Iraq's no-fly zone during the run-up to the invasion. Dubai has borne the costs in fuel and facilities maintenance of these U.S. military operations, and receives not a dime in "foreign aid." In addition to hosting over 1,000 U.S. troops at various air and naval facilities, the U.A.E. is contributing to the maintenance of U.S. military bases in Germany. The Gulf states are islands of U.S. influence in an Arabic-Muslim sea of Middle Eastern hostility: to insult them in so flagrant a manner would be to effectively sink the pro-U.S. governments that have so far remained our only faithful allies in the region. Fearful of Iran, the U.A.E. has cozied up to the U.S. like no other country in the Middle East, except, perhaps, Kuwait." (Justin Raimondo ‘Hating Arabs’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8587 February 22, 2006).
Thirdly, iran faces an even more intense encirclement through the expansion of nato’s role in the middle east, "NATO expansion project to include the US allies had been explicitly requested in a report submitted by the former Spanish Prime Minister José-María Aznar, L’OTAN, une alliance pour la liberté in which he talked about the possibility of including not only Ukraine and Georgia, but also Japan and Australia, and why not Israel. The Alliance would become then a permanent coalition for the service of Good as defined by the White House. Including Israel in the Alliance would create an obligation for all member States to provide assistance to the Jewish State if attacked by Iran, even though it was in self-defense." (Munich Conference: accession of Israel to NATO and attack Iran’ http://www.voltairenet.org/article135669.html February 15th 2006).
The iranians thus believe they have legitimate military reasons for possessing nuclear weapons to protect themselves from their nuclear-armed neighbours. If the jews-only state in palestine has nuclear weapons this legitimizes iran’s possession of such weapons. (Once again, these arguments are not meant to support nuclear weapons but to support the abolition of all such weapons).
It is true that iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty. But it is legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty if it believes this would be in its national interests. The jews-only state illegally occupying palestine has refused to sign the treaty so this provides less incentive for the iranians to continue abiding by it. Indeed, the best moral and legal justification that iran has for developing nuclear weapons are the threats being made against it by the zionist occupied governments of palestine, britain, and the united states.
The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ fears concerning Terrorists’ Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons.
The neocons in the western world have been stirring up fears about iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons by arguing it would be madness to allow iran’s religious leaders whom they regard as ‘irrational, islamic psychopaths’ to acquire such weapons. However, the fact is that ‘irrational, jewish psychopaths’ have such weapons so why not iran? Even more frightening for iran is the possibility that mad judaic mullahs will eventually take complete control of the jews-only, theocratic state so the only way for iran to curb their expansionist malignancy would be by acquiring nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons would be safer in the hands of iranian mullahs because they are far more civilized in comparison to the irrational, judaic lunatics in the jews-only state who believe in fantasies such as the jews-only holocaust. What is more, whilst the jews-only state in palestine is a racist, apartheid state the iranian state is not.
Justin raimondo has pointed out that if the bush administration is worried about terrorists getting hold of iranian nuclear bombs there is an even bigger risk of this happening in pakistan and yet it expresses no concern about this. "To begin with, proliferation of nuclear weaponry is bad in and of itself: we don't want another Pakistan on our hands, in which we nervously await an internal eruption to empower some Islamic nutball to launch a nuclearized jihad. On the other hand, we've endured the Pakistan situation for this long, and its potential consequences in terms of getting nuclear arms directly into the hands of Osama bin Laden & Co. are far more likely – and more horrendously lethal – than the prospect of Tehran acquiring nukes." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 January 13, 2006).
Iran is More of a Democratic State than the Jews-only State in Palestine.
The racist, apartheid, jews-only state in palestine, and the israelis controlling the bush administration, say they want to attack iran in order to establish democracy in that country. However, it has to be pointed out that iran already has a political system with a substantial democratic component. "But how many Americans are aware that women may vote and hold political office in Iran? How many Americans are aware that the president of Iran is a reformer who is intensely disliked by the conservative Islamist establishment? How many Americans are aware that religious minorities have guaranteed representation in the Iranian parliament, and that Judaism is far more tolerated there than in almost all of the Muslim nations which are currently subsidized as our "allies"? How many Americans are aware that there are Christian members of the Iranian parliament, while there are no Muslim members of the American Congress?" (Steven LaTulippe ‘A Few Thoughts Before We 'Liberate' Iran’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe35.html November 24, 2004). Juan cole has sought to counter the neocons’ lies that iran has no democracy, "Goldberg criticizes me for saying that the 1997 presidential election in Iran was more democratic than the Jan. 30, 2005 election in Iraq. His complaint is that the four candidates for president were vetted and approved by Iran's Guardianship Council. It is certainly the case that although Iran has elections, they are flawed because many candidates are excluded on ideological grounds. To say that, however, is not to say that the popular will can never unexpectedly make itself known in Iran. In the 1997 election the vetting was lax, and a relative liberal, Muhammad Khatami, was allowed to run. He had earlier been fired as minister of culture for being too liberal. He wrote about Habermas and civil society and democratization in Iran (he had lived in Germany several years and read Habermas in German). The four presidential candidates in Iran were all known by name, unlike the candidates for Iraq's parliament, most of whom remained anonymous to voters in the weeks leading up to the election. I'd say that is a sign of greater transparency in Iran. The Iranian participants were not in danger if they campaigned or ran, one of the criteria of a successful democratic election according to international watchdog groups. In this respect, too, Iran in that year was superior to Iraq in 2005. Khatami's victory in 1997 was a big surprise. He was put in by the youth vote and the women's vote, against the wishes of the hardline clerics. If a candidate wins who wasn't expected to, that is a sign of lack of manipulation of the results. Khatami was elected by 69% of the Iranian electorate, and 76 percent of eligible voters voted. The latter number is higher than will be true for Iraq. In every way, from the transparency of candidates and platforms, to safe conditions for voters, to unexpected results, to the percentage of eligible voters who voted and the percentage of the electorate that directly chose Mr. Khatami, his election was more democratic than the elections just held in Iraq." (Juan Cole ‘Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 5th 2005). There was also a surprise election victory in 2005 for mahmud ahmadinejad which once again reinforces iran’s democratic credentials.
Power is not fixed in concrete in iran. One commentator has pointed out the limits to the power of the iranian president, "Khamenei, known as rahbar, or leader, is elected for life by the 86-member "Assembly of Experts" who themselves are elected by their provinces and have a guardian watchdog role. More important, the president has sharply limited executive powers. He doesn't control the High Council of the Nation's Security, the armed forces, the revolutionary guards, the intelligence services, the judiciary and broadcasting. All the important levers of power belong to rahbar. Nor does the president have the power to dismiss parliament and call new elections." (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Iraq, Iran unintended results’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060217-115704-7804r Feb. 17th 2006). But another commentator has suggested that since coming to power mahmud ahmadinejad has managed to transform a number of iranian institutions to extend his power base. "Lack of progress on the economic and social-justice front notwithstanding, Ahmadinejad has introduced massive changes to the face and operations of the executive branch. Virtually all provincial governors have been replaced by Ahmadinejad loyalists, who tend to be young and hail from the Islamic Republic's security establishment, in particular the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC - or the Sepah-e-Pasdaran). Moreover, Ahmadinejad has replaced most senior bankers and other important figures in charge of the country's finances. Furthermore, many of the country's most experienced diplomats have been recalled from abroad and replaced by less experienced figures, with backgrounds in the Sepah-e-Pasdaran and other security outfits." (Mahan Abedin ‘Ahmadinejad on the warpath’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB18Ak02.html February 18th 2006). This hardly suggests that iran is a fossilized theocracy. It is much more like a flexible democratic country.
A vitally important part of any democratic system is the protection of minorities. Given iran’s ancient history this might have been fertile ground for the appearance of persian supremacists wanting to create a new persian empire by conquering arab countries and acquire arab land. And yet such tendencies have not appeared since the islamic revolution. If anything the exact reverse has been the case. Iran’s admiration for islam leads it to respect and honour arab countries which also promote islam. As a consequence it would be anathema to the iranian state to persecuting its arab minorities. "Furthermore, claims that Arabs in Iran constitute a persecuted minority are as false as they are amusing. In fact, since the Islamic revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has gone out of its way to promote the Arabic language (at the expense of Persian) in its drive to "Islamize" Iranian society. It is also important to note that Iran's current defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, is an ethnic Arab from Khuzestan. Claims by Khuzestani separatists that the Iranian regime is engaged in the persecution of minorities is particularly strange when one considers the fact that the Islamic republic has shown extreme sympathy for Arab causes both inside and outside of Iran." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005).
On a more mundane level, quite how western neocons could argue that wars are a means for establishing democracy after what has happened in iraq is not explained and is not explicable. If iraq is anything to go by, war is the worst possible means for bringing about democracy. The more that the jews in america and palestine bring about devastation in iran, the less likelihood there is of democracy rising from the ruins.
It has to be suggested that iran’s political system is much more democratic than that prevailing in the apartheid jews-only state in palestine. So why isn’t the west trying to democratize palestine? Jews in america spend more of their time, effort, and resources, on trying to push america into wars for the benefits of the jews-only state than they do in trying to reform the racist nature of the jews-only state in palestine.
The Promotion of Democracy in Iran will boost demands for Iranian Nuclear Weapons.
The israelis in the racist, apartheid, jews-only state and the bush administration believe a major benefit of attacking iran and democratizing the country would be that iranians would lose interest in their country obtaining nuclear weapons. However, all the evidence suggests that if iran became more democratic this would increase popular demands for the country to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually every iranian, whether secular or religious, supports the idea of their country acquiring nuclear weapons. "But the mullahs are unlikely to give up their nuclear weapons efforts, which are popular among Iranians of all political persuasions …." (The New York Times ‘Military rumblings on Iran’ http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/
articles/2005/01/27/opinion/ediran.html January 28, 2005). The possession of nuclear weapons is popular in all countries which possess them so it is not surprising they are popular in iran. Of course, if iran is attacked this would automatically boost iranians’ support for the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Iran’s Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons will bring Peace to the Middle East.
Since the racist, jews-only state in palestine already possesses nuclear weapons the best way to neutralize, and perhaps even abolish, such weapons is for iran to acquire similar weapons. In other words, the best way to bring peace to the middle east is to encourage iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran and the jews-only state in palestine can then negotiate to eradicate such weapons through a multi-lateral agreement.
According to roger howard, the reason the jews-only state in palestine is opposed to iran getting nuclear weapons isn’t the military threat posed by such weapons but their political consequences for mutual disarmament. "It seems likely, then, that there are other, more convincing, reasons why Israel is concerned about an Iranian bomb. One possibility, for example, is that Tel Aviv is deeply concerned that such a development could potentially create deep splits in the U.S.-Israel alliance. Consider, for example, what would happen if Tehran, having developed a warhead and withdrawn from the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, offered to reduce the size of or even eliminate its own nuclear arsenal in return for similar moves – all UN-monitored – by Tel Aviv." (Roger Howard ‘Why Israel Really Fears Iranian Nukes’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/howard.php?articleid=4065 November 27, 2004); "Now that Saddam is defeated, Israel must seriously consider foregoing its nuclear weapons as part of a grand bargain with Iran. And the other Arab states, which are covertly developing the possibility of going nuclear, must open up and renounce the effort as Libya recently did." (Jonathan Power ‘The Danger of an Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article
=60411&d=14&m=3&y=2005 March 14th 2005).
This position has recently been endorsed by justin raimondo, "Insofar as it would make all-out war unthinkable, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Tehran would, ironically, stabilize as much as destabilize a volcanically volatile region. As it stands now, the entire Middle East lives in the shadow of a possible Israeli first strike against a perceived threat – as exemplified by a recent round of speculation about an imminent Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites. This is inherently destabilizing, as it means an increase in "fourth generation" terrorist tactics employed by Israel's enemies, and opens up the possibility that a future Israeli prime minister – perhaps an extremist elected by a radicalized Israeli majority – might one day really pull the nuclear trigger. On the other hand, having leveled the playing field, the Iranians would render the Israeli first-strike strategy inoperable. A war between Israel and its adversaries in the Middle East, rather than ending in the nuking of Tehran, Mecca, and every major Muslim city in the region, would instead have to mean "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) – that old specter of the Cold War that the neocons found so insufferably irritating at the time, and which stood in the way of their dreams of "regime change." (It happened anyway, albeit without their intervention, but that's another story…)." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 January 13, 2006).
The real reason, however, why the jews-only state does not want iran to acquire nuclear weapons is because this would neuter the jews-only state’s ability to use its nuclear weapons to blackmail america into fighting zionist proxy wars. The jews-only state would no longer be able to blackmail america into providing a constant supply of economic assistance, military hardware, and cutting edge military technology.
The neocons, israelis who are traitors to america, continually resort to propaganda in the hope of undermining opposition to an attack on iran. They have occasionally floated the idea that america should not only prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but should try to remove those in the jews-only state in palestine. But, the idea that the israelis who have colonized america’s media/congress/administration/presidency will pressure the jews-only state in palestine into giving up its nuclear weapons for the sake of encouraging middle eastern countries such as iran to abide by the non proliferation treaty is preposterous. When in april 2004 bush recognized "the facts on the ground" concerning zionists’ illegal occupation of palestine he was also taking the first step in recognizing the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons.
Whether the bush administration forces the jews-only state in palestine to abide by international law and give up its nuclear weapons or whether it uses its military power to ensure the jews-only state’s monoploy of nuclear weapons in the middle east, is a good indicator of the extent of jewish global domination. Given that iran is not currently a military threat to either europe or america, and given that its possession of nuclear weapons would not pose a military threat to either europe or america, the fact that western countries are treating the iran issue as their primary foreign policy issue suggests they are all acting under orders from the jews-only state in palestine. Watching american, european, russian and chinese, politicians dancing to the zionist tune over iran provides conclusive proof as to the existence of jewish world domination. The jews-only state has taken over political leadership of the western world. Whatever policies are promoted by the jews-only state in palestine are then adopted by the zionist occupied governments of america and britain and then imposed on the rest of the world. America’s policies towards iran have nothing to do with american interests. On the contrary, they run counter to american interests. The foreign policies being pursued by the american, british, french, and german, governments are policies first formulated by the jews-only state solely for the benefit of the racist state in palestine. The jews-only state, and the jewish lobby in america, pushed the nixon administration into supporting the jews-only state in the 1973 middle east war, the proxy zionist gulf war in 1990, and the proxy zionist invasion of iraq in 2003. The west has suffered huge economic and military losses as a result of its implementation of the foreign policies of the jews-only state in palestine. It shows just how many sacrifices that western governments are willing to make for their jewish masters. But what is even more remarkable is that nobody in the western world seeks to blame the jews-only state for such losses. The west currently seems willing to sacrifice even more of its wealth and ooman lives on yet another proxy zionist war for the benefit of its jewish masters.
The Environmental Implications of Preventing Iran from Using Civil Nuclear Power.
Since the turn of the millenium, an increasing number of politicians in the over-industrialized world have proposed an expansion of nuclear energy firstly, to combat future energy shortages and, secondly, to combat global burning. Both blair and bush support an expansion of their nuclear power industries. The same is also true of european governments, "But now, some EU countries – including Germany – are having second thoughts about phasing out nuclear power. For one thing, replacing Germany's nuclear power plants with coal-fired plants would result in an increase of more than 170 million metric tons in carbon dioxide emissions. Well, Bush apparently really does want to revive nuclear power." (Gordon Prather ‘Placating the Greenies’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8599 February 25, 2006). After a couple of decades of silence since the three mile island disaster, the global nuclear power industry is becoming increasingly vociferous that a vast expansion of nuclear power is the best solution to combating climate change because it releases fewer Carbon emissions than fossil fuels.
As regards the energy shortage issue: If iran is not going to be allowed to generate nuclear energy, what is it going to use for energy when its fossil fuels are exhausted? Iran has abundant fossil fuel resources but even these are going to run out so what is it going to do once they have gone?
As regards the climate change issue: Western governments are demanding that the west increases its reliance on nuclear power to reduce its Carbon emissions and thus help to combat global warming. In other words, they want to prevent iran from adopting what they believe is the best option for combating global warming. Western governments pretend they want to reduce Carbon emissions from fossil fuels and yet they are forcing iran to continue using fossil fuels which will pollute the atmosphere and destabilize the climate. The west sees no contradiction in this bizarre double standard.
It seems the west is going to use its military power to allow only their allies to use nuclear energy. When the oil runs out, the rest of the world is going to have to survive without oil, gas, or nuclear energy. Only the west’s allies are going to be allowed to combat climate change and the increasing costs of fossil fuels by switching to nuclear energy. The rest of the world is going to have to pay more and more for fossil fuels until eventually they become too expensive. Poor countries will end up becoming even poorer because they have no energy resources. Prior to this inequitable policy it was hoped that all countries around the world would eventually become rich and that the divide between the first, and third, worlds would disappear. This new international policy will prevent this from happening. By denying countries access to nuclear technology, the over-industrialized world is also preventing other countries from developing industrially. In other words, the rich world is going to keep the poor world in a permanent state of poverty.
It seems as if the bush administration has concluded it cannot just ban countries from exploiting nuclear power leaving them bereft of energy. It has come up with an idea for helping countries to develop nuclear energy without increasing nuclear proliferation. "Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney Department of Energy just announced plans to form a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, through which the U.S. "will work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to produce more energy, reduce waste, and minimize proliferation concerns." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006). Gordon prather believes the chinese have developed a nuclear reactor which cannot be exploited to provide nuclear weapons. This new advanced nuclear reactor is also supposedly safe from a meltdown and comes in handy size packs that can be mass manufactured for use all over the globe, "The proliferation-proof, meltdown-proof pebble-bed technology development began in Germany more than 30 years ago and was continued in South Africa, but has apparently now been perfected in China. If, as planned, similar units are produced modularly in factories in China, by 2020 China will be the world's only supplier of first-rate nuclear power plants." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006). As to where the nuclear waste from these pebble-dashed nuclear reactors will be stored once its useful energy has been extracted is not known but then only "eco-wackos", as prather refers to them, would raise such an issue. Whether these nuclear reactors are bomb proof is another matter not mentioned.
posted by The Mundi Club @ 10:46 PM
<< Home