Model Nation to vs. Board Members: Venezuela Seeks Nuclear Capability

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Venezuela seeks nuclear technology
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 17, 2005

The Venezuelan government has made overtures to various countries about obtaining nuclear technology, according to U.S. officials, who worry that President Hugo Chavez might be taking the first steps in a long road to develop nuclear weaponry.

A Bush administration official monitoring Latin America said the entreaties have included communications with Iran, with whom Venezuela maintains increasingly close ties. Washington has branded Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and accuses it of pursuing nuclear weapons through its atomic industry.

Russia has sold Iran a nuclear reactor from which Iran could eventually develop nuclear-grade materials. Russia has promised the West that it will collect all nuclear waste.

"We are keeping an eye on Venezuela," said one senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "My sense is that Venezuela has not been as successful with its nuclear entreaties with other countries as it would have liked."

The administration official said there is no clear evidence that Mr. Chavez wants to develop nuclear weapons. But, the source said, there is consistent intelligence reporting that his government has discussed obtaining technology from other countries.

Mr. Chavez, a populist
PAD Comment: No, he's a socialist bordering on communist. who has ratcheted up anti-U.S. rhetoric as he forges ties with some of America's adversaries, is in the middle of a military buildup that some analysts in the Bush administration fear is a precursor to ending elections.

"Chavez would like to have everything. He has the money to do it," said the official, noting Venezuela's vast oil reserves. "He wants new fighter jets. He wants to put a satellite in space."

He has formed an alliance with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who has sent thousands of government officials to Venezuela. Mr. Chavez is forming what Pentagon officials say are neighborhood militias modeled after Cuba's communist apparatus to maintain iron-fisted control.

The U.S. administration official said Venezuela has begun taking delivery of more than 100,000 Russian-made AK-47s, some of which will arm the militias. It is also ramping up production of small-arms rounds that the Bush administration fears will be shipped to rebels in democratic parts of Latin America.

But more troubling to the Bush administration is Mr. Chavez's close ties to the mullahs in Iran. He visited Tehran last year and held a series of meetings with Iran's ruling mullahs. He then publicly supported Iran's quest for a huge nuclear industry.

"They are quite kissy-kissy with Iran," said the U.S. official. "There is a lot of back and forth. Iranians show up at Venezuelan things. They are both pariah states that hang out together."

During an interview on Arab-language Al Jazeera television, Mr. Chavez, who had just completed his trip to Iran, was asked about his confrontation with the United States and whether he feared being deposed as Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was.

"I am on the offensive," Mr. Chavez responded, according to a transcript from the British Broadcasting Corp., "because attack is the best form of defense. We are waging an offensive battle. Yesterday, in Tehran, the spiritual guide [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei told me a true statement: power, power."

Mr. Chavez called the U.S. war on terrorism "terrorism itself."

Concern in Washington over Mr. Chavez's nuclear ambitions arose this week after the Argentine newspaper Clarin reported Sunday that Venezuela had asked Buenos Aires to sell it a nuclear reactor.

Two days later, the Latin News Daily quoted Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez as denying the report. He said Venezuela was merely in talks with Argentina and Brazil to explore the peaceful scientific uses of the atom. Mr. Chavez periodically has expressed an interest in building a nuclear reactor to generate electric power.

The senior U.S. official said Washington is confident that Argentina would not sell Venezuela a reactor or any technology that could lead to nuclear weapons.

When asked about the issue Tuesday, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the U.S. expects all countries to adhere to nonproliferation treaties. Another department spokesman contacted by The Washington Times declined to discuss Venezuela beyond what Mr. Ereli said.

A person in the Venezuelan Embassy's press office in Washington said that only the ambassador talks to the press and that he was not available for comment.

Link

You lay down with dogs, you get fleas. Why anyone would paint a bullseye on himself like this I have no idea.
 
The administration official said there is no clear evidence that Mr. Chavez wants to develop nuclear weapons. But, the source said, there is consistent intelligence reporting that his government has discussed obtaining technology from other countries.

Yeah, our "intelligence" has done such a wonderful job so far. :roll:

I find it it amusing that the U.S. plays such a hypocritical role when in comes to Nuclear capability. If it's such a concern, then the U.S. should be leaders by dismantlling our nuclear weapons and shutting down nuclear power plants. Note that the article doesn't mention what Chavez intends to use the technology for. But if it is for nuclear weapons, can you blame him? The U.S. has already backed one failed coup against him.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Yeah, our "intelligence" has done such a wonderful job so far. :roll:

I find it it amusing that the U.S. plays such a hypocritical role when in comes to Nuclear capability. If it's such a concern, then the U.S. should be leaders by dismantlling our nuclear weapons and shutting down nuclear power plants. Note that the article doesn't mention what Chavez intends to use the technology for. But if it is for nuclear weapons, can you blame him? The U.S. has already backed one failed coup against him.[/QUOTE]

Simple yes or no question.

Is there a difference between the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan (Not a nuclear power but included it for debate purposes.) and Germany (Like Japan included for discussion.) and Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Simple yes or no question.

Is there a difference between the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan (Not a nuclear power but included it for debate purposes.) and Germany (Like Japan included for discussion.) and Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe?[/QUOTE]

It's not so simple. The U.S. is a reason why these nations feel threatened and are seeking weapons of their own. It's the ultimate deterent to keep their countries safe.
 
Wait, so venezuela might be discussing nuclear weapons with a country that might be intending to develop nuclear weapons, but there's no actual evidence that they might be discussing them with a country that might be attempting to build them. That sells it for me. We invaded Iraq on less than that, so it looks like it's time to take out the commie. YEEE HAAAA!!!!!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You made it that simple. You attached moral equivilency to it![/QUOTE]

Countries don't sit there and think "well, we're a danger to the world, so we'll let all our enemies have nukes, but we won't do anything to protect ourselves since that might anger them".
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Countries don't sit there and think "well, we're a danger to the world, so we'll let all our enemies have nukes, but we won't do anything to protect ourselves since that might anger them".[/QUOTE]

Funny you should say that. ABM Treaty, anyone? I wonder how many times you've criticized "Star Wars."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Funny you should say that. ABM Treaty, anyone? I wonder how many times you've criticized "Star Wars."[/QUOTE]

I wasn't supporting that way of acting or reasoning, if anything it's a reason not to up the ante. Kinda like how israel scares the shit out of the middle east being the only one with nukes, the strongest, and backed by a nation that has shown itself willing to attack unprovoked. Its enemies would be much safer with nuclear weapons as a deterrent. We get our weapons into space, other nations will follow. Opening a whole new frontier of war is not the same as simply improving technology.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I wasn't supporting that way of acting or reasoning, if anything it's a reason not to up the ante. Kinda like how israel scares the shit out of the middle east being the only one with nukes, the strongest, and backed by a nation that has shown itself willing to attack unprovoked. Its enemies would be much safer with nuclear weapons as a deterrent. We get our weapons into space, other nations will follow. Opening a whole new frontier of war is not the same as simply improving technology.[/QUOTE]

The "new frontier" is merely a defensive weapon, no more, no less. I think the idea that was floated a long time ago to jointly develop this with Russia and share the results was outstanding.

And if you think Israel's neighbors would really be safer with their own nuclear weapons, I don't know what to tell you. After all, Israel hasn't bombed anyone for trying to develop nukes before... :roll:
 
[quote name='evanft']It's Venezuela for fuck's sakes. They're not the same as Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.[/QUOTE]

Yet the point is that their wannabe dictator leader wants them to be.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The "new frontier" is merely a defensive weapon, no more, no less. I think the idea that was floated a long time ago to jointly develop this with Russia and share the results was outstanding.[/quote]

But militarizing space starts somewhere.

And if you think Israel's neighbors would really be safer with their own nuclear weapons, I don't know what to tell you. After all, Israel hasn't bombed anyone for trying to develop nukes before... :roll:

Two different statements. If they have nukes they're safer, Israel bombed Iraq to prevent them from having them. I don't think they should have nukes (neither should Israel), but it's usually good to have a balance of power.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But militarizing space starts somewhere.[/QUOTE]

True enough. Let me ask you this: do you support efforts at missile defense (Earth-based) right now? I'd wager you don't, but I'll wait for your reply.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']True enough. Let me ask you this: do you support efforts at missile defense (Earth-based) right now? I'd wager you don't, but I'll wait for your reply.[/QUOTE]

In principal yes, but I don't think the funds are available for it at the moment. There's more important issues for the time being.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']In principal yes, but I don't think the funds are available for it at the moment. There's more important issues for the time being.[/QUOTE]

I find that argument curious given North Korea's and Iran's activities, not to mention the real possibilities of terrorism using a stolen (or given) missile. I think that it's more important than a lot of the stuff we spend defense money on. I'm still for jointly developing a system with Russia and maybe other interested countries and sharing the results. These things will never be able to stop an attack by a true nuclear power with hundreds of missiles, but they could possibly stop a terrorist attack or rogue nation like North Korea or Iran with only a couple.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I find that argument curious given North Korea's and Iran's activities, not to mention the real possibilities of terrorism using a stolen (or given) missile. I think that it's more important than a lot of the stuff we spend defense money on. I'm still for jointly developing a system with Russia and maybe other interested countries and sharing the results. These things will never be able to stop an attack by a true nuclear power with hundreds of missiles, but they could possibly stop a terrorist attack or rogue nation like North Korea or Iran with only a couple.[/QUOTE]

I don't think north korea or Iran is a threat. The idea that Iran would attack us, or even israel anymore (considering the near certainty we'd come to their aid) doesn't seem to have much to go on. The only way I could see Iran in a war with any western nation, or Israel, is if they were attacked first. It would be suicidal to go on the initiative. Also, Iran is a reasonable country. They understand the risk, that there is no possible benefit etc. They are not a rogue state in the north korea or afghanistan sense.

North Korea is obsessed with survival, they'd only attack if we attacked them, or if they were certain of an imminent attack. But, instead of us, they'd attack south korea and japan.

Shooting a missile far enough to hit us is much more difficult than simply having a missile. Look at what groups like hamas have and how horrible those missiles are. The chances of a terrorist group launching a missile at us, a dangerous one, is too remote to build a missile defense system against.
 
bread's done
Back
Top