New Scenario Idea: Russia to power Iranian Nuclear plants

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B7D...90095339D5A.htm

"Under the agreement, Russia will provide Bushehr power plant's fuel for the next
10 years"

Asadollah Sabouri,
deputy head, Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation
Thursday 17 February 2005, 16:54 Makka Time, 13:54 GMT

An Iranian official has said a key agreement with Russia on the return of spent nuclear fuel will be signed by the end of the month.

The deal will pave the way for Iran's first nuclear power plant.

Asadollah Sabouri, a deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, was quoted by state television as saying that the agreement would allow Russia to provide Bushehr's power reactor with fuel, and would be signed on 26 February.

The signing of the agreement, which obliges Iran to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia, will take place during Russian atomic energy chief Alexander Rumyantsev's three-day visit to Tehran, starting on 25 February, he said.

"Under the agreement, Russia will provide Bushehr power plant's fuel for the next 10 years," Sabouri said, with the first shipment of fuel due to be delivered by plane three months after the signing.

An agreement on the return to Russia of spent nuclear fuel has remained the key impediment to the $800 million project to build the plant in Bushehr, southern Iran.

Vigorous denial

Tehran has in the past used various arguments to avoid signing the agreement. It has said the material was too volatile and dangerous to transport back to Russia and also that Moscow was charging too much for the fuel itself.

The United States and Europe have raised alarm that Iran could reprocess the spent fuel delivered from Russia by upgrading it through centrifuges for weapons development instead, a charge Tehran has vigorously denied.

Both the US and Israel have jointly campaigned against the Bushehr project, but Moscow - considerate of the huge monetary gains from the deal - has countered that it would make sure the plant remained harmless to protect its own security interests.

The announcement of the nuclear fuel deal comes just weeks after the US administration said it could not rule out the use of military force if Tehran failed to drop its alleged efforts to develop an atomic weapons capability.

AFP
 

JanMasterson

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Marche
Country
llBelgium
After reading this news, i thought about a scen background:
off course, US and Israel aren't agreeing and they told us loud and clear, about 1 month after the official annoucement that an iranian perseverance in the nuc way will "invite" US to neutralize the installs, 5 EMP over US territory paralized the whole country, USA is KO.
The UN mandate a inspectors team and mandate France to provide armed escort, it consist of the Charles de Gaulle group, they come into he persian gulf via oman strait, at about 50km from Bushehr, the inspectors just taked off from CDG in a helo, just before they reach Bushehr (let's say at about 10nm, 4 israelis SUfa (F-16I) bombard Bushehr (do u remind the raid versus Iraki reactor?) ;) ), iranian are now convinced that french are "hostiles", in fact, they think that every stranger is now "hostile",
The orders, commander, is to drive ur CVBG outside the persian gulf ASAP and without loosing ur ships :)
with everything speaking farsi trying to kill u)
 

JanMasterson

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Marche
Country
llBelgium
After a nice discussion with Myk and danh yesterday night, it seems that a more "realist" reason for the US absence would add "credibility" to the background.
So, what can be a good/realistic reason for the US to not be active in this part of the world?
My own, non researched, possibilities:
- EMP strike paralized the country, lots of riots everywhere, a kind of civil war;
- actual president and some high VIP have been killed by a terror nuc strike when they was visiting a european/asian/african (make ur choice), there's no real leader ATM, so UN is the only "world policeman" ATM;
- a major chinese/NK operation strike taiwan/SK, all US forces are defending the region;
- well know terorrists have warned the world that if US forces come back in the persian gulf region, many nuc terror attack will strike major cities in the whole world, so there is an enormous political pressure on USA (from every country this time, not just some europeans).

What are yours?
 

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
If you want a simple reason for the absence of US forces, you can use that Taiwan/PRC situation to justify it.

Also, you can make up tons of reasons. How about a killer Tsunami that affects the entire western seaboard? Military forces are held back for relief efforts. One idea that I intend to use is to postulate that the San Andreas fault finally gives way and plunges much of California all the way up to Vancouver into the Pacific.

You think that American forces are going to be a bit distracted? :D

Whatever you decide, should be fine. You set your own realism. Other folks can choose to believe or not believe in your story. It's only background. :) Before the Twin Tower Attacks, no one would have thought that using airliners was realistic, either.
 

MikMyk

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Oh don't the conversation was really that deep. Honestly think it was far more interesting than anything we have had to talk about at the time. Didn't really expect it to end up posted up at the warfare HQ...but hey its content :laugh:

Herman's more or less right. Its just a story line :nuts:
 
Last edited:

MikMyk

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Another idea is that the French have decided to spearhead the initiative. They've taken ownership of the problem so their forces are deployed to support. US is pretty stretched and really any other commitment could make that situation viable.

If you want really be concerned with anything just do some research on Iranian assets and possible French assets. Should really be a good scenario :)
 

CV32

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
Location
The Rock
Country
llCanada
Herman is exactly right. The storyline is only a small part of what makes a scenario a good one. :)
 

danrh

Recruit
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
Sorry if I seemed to come on heavy yesterday Jan :) Its certainly your scenario and storyline and my opinion is just that. My only real point was that a direct attack on the US, especially one that wouldn't knock out the US military, seems more likely to guarantee US involvement that not :) Mayeb we can get an opinion on that from the local Taliban or al Quaeda rep.

Daniel
 

JanMasterson

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Marche
Country
llBelgium
Ok guys, thx for ur answers!
I know that background is only the first step but, for me, a good background make a scen more immersive.
Cheers,
Jan
 

Taitennek

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Location
Netherlands
Country
llNetherlands
Hahahahahahahha......
He, Mike, you really made a point.........
Hahahahhahahaahahhahahhahahhaha
MikMyk said:
Oh don't the conversation was really that deep. Honestly think it was far more interesting than anything we have had to talk about at the time. Didn't really expect it to end up posted up at the warfare HQ...but hey its content :laugh:

Herman's more or less right. Its just a story line :nuts:
 

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Hey Jan,

The more I think of it, the more that I think that the position / state of the US forces is irrelevant. :)

If you want to go into deep background, of course it might make the scenario a bit more interesting. However, like any commander, you have to play the cards that you are dealt.

So, why not just say that a French Force is delivering UN inspectors when the Israelis attack and set off the powderkeg? Why even bother mentioning the absence of American forces? That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? You could name it, The Calm before the Storm. :D

You can cover the story line with a simple explanation. i.e. France is flexing her muscles and trying to maintain a presence in the region.

Also, I saw your reference satellite imagery on HarpGamer forum. I know that you like realistic orders. However, I don't think that there is any way for a designer to include photographic images in either HCG or H3 orders. So, why not add a document file to your Scenario *.zip that either has the image or a link to the image and call it SatInt? I think that it would definitely add some colour and flare to the scenario.

This sounds like it is going to be a lot of fun. :D
 

JanMasterson

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Marche
Country
llBelgium
I just told yesterday to someone on Irc that i'll certainly release a "light" version without any "goodies" and a "full" version with OOBs, maps, distance between bases, etc. ;)
 

Herman Hum

Composite Warfare Command
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
22
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Here's another suggestion:

If you are making the scenario with H3, you might consider not even having the Inspectors on the French side. You can create a separate new side and thus have the Inspection team apart from the player altogether. Then you can give the Plane a specific scheduled course and require the player to protect it!

I know that HCG also has the possibility for neutral sides but I don't know if the HCG team has been able to allow the AI to attack a neutral side, yet. The last time that I tried it, I was unable to purposely attack neutral units.
 

JanMasterson

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Marche
Country
llBelgium
Herman Hum said:
I know that HCG also has the possibility for neutral sides but I don't know if the HCG team has been able to allow the AI to attack a neutral side, yet. The last time that I tried it, I was unable to purposely attack neutral units.
U should try it agian with the new release :smoke:
For my first, i'll release it on HC only.
In about three weeks i'll be on holiday for 1 week, so i'll hav ethe time to gie a try to H3 SE.
 

Reckall

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
135
Reaction score
7
Location
Milan, Italy
Country
llItaly
MikMyk said:
Oh Didn't really expect it to end up posted up at the warfare HQ...but hey its content :laugh:

Herman's more or less right. Its just a story line :nuts:
One more reason to have an alternate place to post scenario ideas ;)

Anyway, as I always teach to my students (I do teach creative writing) a storyline must be *coherent* - i.e. given the basic situation, things must evolve in a logical way. This is the only requirement.

Regarding "verosimility", this concept is among the first ones I try to root out from any buddying writer. It is a concept usually founded about what the writer *believes* verosimility is, but reality has the habit to surprise us. Cases in point.

- In 1991 Tom Clancy wrote a book called "The Sum of All Fears" where a multi-millionar terrorist (plagued by a serious sicknes) financed and organized a catastrophic terrorist act which caused thousand of deaths in the Continental United States. Comments at that time were that "writers are scrambling for plainly unrealistic scenarios to have something to write about after the end of the Cold War".

- In 1994 Clancy published "Debt of Honor", were a kamikaze Japanese pilot crashes his 747 on the Capitol, killing the whole Congress. The comments were "well, come on!"

Differences between DoH and 9/11:

* Only one plane was involved in DoH, four were in the 9/11 attacks

* The plane in DoH was crashed by his own pilot, 9/11 involved four hijackings, and all the risks of being discovered associated with having a ring of terrorists learning to fly in the USA over many months.

* In DoH there were portable SAM launchers around strategic targets, which tried to stop the plane; during 9/11 not a single missile was launched against the plane heading for the Pentagon.

So, Clancy was actually *VERY* conservative in his scenario - a scenario that generated comments like "this time Clancy really crossed the line" by many in 1994.

"Verosimility" is important, but "what if" is actually more so. In my experience, "verosimility" risks to have the same function that "writing in good italian" (or "english" for you) has for the aspiring writer: to help to pass as "professional" something actually plain and dull. I sent home more wanna-be writers sporting "semantically correct and realistic stories" than I can remember, and I saw more plain and dull stories being published because the editor "hadn't to correct many mistakes" than I can quote.

Of course I have nothing against writing in good and flowering language, following a logical chain of events, *AFTER* you come up with something interesting and exciting.

I was actually happy when I discovered that Robert McKee said exactly the same thing in "Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting" (http://tinyurl.com/5al43). Guys writing "realistic stories in a good, fluent language" are "Da Plague" in the creative community, believe me. And of the worst sort: one actually able to masquerade themselves as "true professionals"
 
Top