Re: [Phys-l] dealing with the media +- evolution

["Richard Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>]

Since no one will take the hint and end this thread, I might as well join 
in--there is a tiny bit of physics (well world energy knowledge) involved.

Iran has a very large natural gas reserve--about half of what Russia has. 
That would be the obvious choice for electrical production.  Relatively 
clean, large supply (they need tap only a little), and a whole lot cheaper. 
We can, and probably will, hide our head in the sand about this until Israel 
decides Iran is getting too close to a nuclear weapon, and then they will 
nuke the site--have all but said they would.  Then the s*** will really hit 
the fan.  We had better be growing nothing but energy crops at that point 
because if we back-up Israel, and of course we will, NOBODY in the mid-East 
will sell us a drop of oil.

As another poster pointed out on some other posts to this thread, there are 
TWO Iraq wars to talk about.  The war against Iraq which went pretty much as 
everyone reported it would go, and the current military conflict (GW's 
mistake, IMO, to continue to call it a war) involving trying to provide 
security during the nation building phase against the religious extremists 
(a near civil war if you insist) and the outside agitation by Iranian and 
Syrian backed terrorists.  It is this second conflict that has dragged on, 
should have been foreseen, and has public opinion mostly against continued 
involvement.  My thought is the a fast withdrawal would more than likely 
move up the date when Israel takes charge over Iran.  But what do I know?

;-)

Rick  [guessing that no one was absolutely sure that Hitler would invade 
Poland.......  Also suspecting that war against Iraq was as much about Iran 
and North Korea as Iraq itself.]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hugh Haskell" <hhaskell@mindspring.com>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] dealing with the media +- evolution


> At 17:20  -0500 4/6/08, cliff parker wrote:
> > I take your points.  Communication is a tricky business and some use that 
> > to
> > their advantage.  But can you lay enrichment of uranium and construction 
> > of
> > nuclear power plants at the feet of mistranslation?  Or do you really 
> > think
> > it is to avoid the CO2 emissions.  They can't even refine their own crude
> > oil but rather have to import gasoline but are working on nuclear power to
> > produce ELECTRICITY?
> Cliff, no one is saying that they aren't after nuclear weapons. It
> looks pretty much that way to me, too. I agree with your analysis.
> But you are assigning far too much certainty to your conclusions. It
> is dangerous to convict someone, even in the international court of
> public opinion, without conclusive evidence. What you are presenting
> is circumstantial, and is strong evidence, but it needs more to
> become conclusive.
>
> If our government continues to operate on the basis that this
> evidence is conclusive and then acts on it, we are, as John M. has
> pointed out, likely to end up in a rerun of Iraq, no better results.
>
> Appearances can be deceiving, and merely having a nuclear reactor, or
> a nuclear enrichment facility in connection with a nuclear reactor
> doesn't mean that weapons are inevitable. If it did, then Japan,
> Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Canada, Australia and a whole host
> of other countries would have nuclear weapons.
>
> If Iran cannot refine its own oil, and is dependent on foreign
> refineries for gasoline for its vehicles, it would make sense to me
> to build a nuclear plant for electricity, especially if some country
> like Russia was willing to do all the work, and all they had to do
> was pay for it from their vast oil revenues.
>
> Look what the assumptions about Iraq got us into. Are we ready to
> play the same game in Iran?
>
> Hugh
> --