Talk:Iran reveals nuclear designs to IAEA

Nuclear Weapons?? I thought wikinews is unbiased
It's clear whoever wrote this article had one thing in mind. All of the designs submitted by Iran were for the purpose of transparency and none what so ever could even suggest the slightest weapon aim except for peaceful power generation purposes. The analogy here is as if a company submitted plans for a new opiate medication to help the sick, and a news reporter said the medicine "could be used to sell to heroin addicts and illicit markets by the company" without no proof just to hype up an interest.

Anything nuclear, even a pellet of uranium can be used for peace or for bombs. There is no evidence for any weapons programmes despite the Zionist hungry media trying to impose false defaming views on Iran to feed Israel's interests, domination and safety in the region. In the same manner WMD was the hyped up false accusations of pre-invaded Iraq. It seems any government who opposes Israel's domineering views is being removed by the USA. It's simple, either be an semitic, or an anti-semitic. Either be with them, or against them. Thats the real war.

Please change the title, and have a look at the plans yourself. --78.86.117.164 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the article says that the plans included information on casting uranium metal into a "warhead"... I have been lazy and not checked up on the references, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but the geometry involved in shaping uranium into a usable nuclear weapon is a highly classified subject among countries that develop such things (drawing from knowledge of advanced physics hoped to be beyond the reach of other nations). This is exactly the type of thing that constitutes plans for a nuclear weapon .  Nowhere does the article indicate that Iran was going to BUILD such a weapon, and it gives their rationale that the plans were simply "included" with other acquisitions.  I don't see anything biased about the way the article presents this information.  One could come away believing what Iran says about the issue with nothing to contradict them here.


 * The title in the main page says Iran reveals nuclear weapon designs to IAEA, that is suggesting Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons, so yes, the article is indicating a false pretense merely by the title. If you had a clue about nuclear power, fission and technology, casting a nuclear metal into a what the sources like to call as a "warhead", has peaceful uses too. Guy's, just be careful about what you write, and do not beef up title's to attract viewers, this is not a builders newspaper. I know mainstream western media likes to bite on Iran due to their own interests as I hinted before, but do your own research, and you will realize Iran has done far more good things for the world and the region. It is sad, like the Iranian minister said "No matter what we do, they will try to put a magnifying glass on every little thing just to portray us as bad, enemies or evil to justify their own real evil means of removing anyone who stands in their way of world domination."--78.86.117.164 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not see the sensationalist headline you describe, so forgive me for being kinder on the way things were portrayed :) Anyway, I guess if that's what it said then I can understand why people were a bit alarmed by what seemed like a bias, although I don't think there's enough information available to say whether it was factually true or not (which means it shouldn't have been said, since we should source everything). I'm certainly not trying to imply that I think Iran WAS trying to build nuclear weapons, or even that the particular plans in question correspond to solely-weapons-oriented technology (as you see, I said I never even checked up on the references ;)).  All I'm interested in is unbiased reporting, and it seemed initially to me that there was a rush of people to defend Iran but nobody had explicitly accused Iran of anything.  A headline on the main page about nuclear "weapons" might be construed as an accusation, but from the article it would seem that this is exactly what the plans were for.  I haven't seen the plans, nor do I know where to find them as some here apparently do, so I can't say.

Untitled
The topic is too sensationalist. May some English native speaker change it according to the text body? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Extra comma
editprotected Can you remove the comma from "cast uranium metal," - it breaks the flow of the sentence. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --SVTCobra 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)