Is a nuclear Iran accceptable?

[fmb]

Maybe a nuclear Iran is acceptable to Obama. Although I am used to politicians speaking out of boths sides of the mouth, I was hoping Obama was serious about keeping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons......

From the Financial Times:

US officials are considering whether to accept Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment, which has been outlawed by the United Nations and remains at the heart of fears that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

As part of a policy review commissioned by President Barack Obama, diplomats are discussing whether the US will eventually have to accept Iran's insistence on carrying out the process, which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons- grade material.

What do you think will be the outcome here? Enriched uranium can be used for nuclear fuel; however, the uranium can be easily enriched to the necessary percentage for use in a nuclear weapon.

Support your statements or opinions!

[CD]

This is a tough situation but I've been thinking about it and have a few points I'd like to share:

1) Iran is known for being an oil producing country, and the world is slowly trying to wean itself off of oil. Whether that means clean coal, green energy, or nuclear, any oil producing country knows that it's future isn't what it currently excels in.

2) A smart country knows it has to reach beyond the oil and start investing in something else. As an example, Dubai has put a tremendous amount of money into making it a city of the future. Indoor downhill skiing, 10 star hotels... major infrastructure! They realize, that when the oil runs up, they will already have an important city and the businesses it needs to make it in the future.

3) Energy is a big concern, and even our country liked the idea of more nuclear reactors providing power to this country when costs were very high. I dare one person here to say that we would not be ok if another country accused us of trying to build nuclear weapons if we went ahead and approved more nuclear power plants.

4) This also ties into the supercomputer ban for Iran and certain other countries in that area. I noticed that a lot of the top 100 supercomputers in this country are focused on a select few things. The weather is a big one, and so is scientific research. Things like the genome project will benefit this country in the future, but is it not just a tad wrong to prevent others from being able to help themselves by doing the same thing?

5) Preventing Iran from being able to help themselves solve their problems or plan their future energy needs seems to me like it might piss them off a tad. I'm not saying they only have good intentions with nuclear reactors, but if we forcibly push them out of the next industrial revolution, I'm positive that we will jump to the top of their shit list.

My question to you is this:
Is there any good answer to your question, or is this a global case of catch-22?

[BackdoorJesus]

I think until Iran eases their vitriolic stance against Israel we should do everything in our power to prevent them from acquiring a nuke.

If possible, you generally do not want to allow the means for mass destruction to fall into the hands of nations who have openly declared that they will eradicate an entire people or another nation.

[joerockhead]

first, the US is always building new nuke weapons, to replace our old ones.

second - We are the only country to have used them, and we saw how horrible it was and how wrong it was.

third - Iran hates Israel and the US so much, it will do what ever it can to destroy them, if that means using a nuke weapon, or even some nuke waste from a nuke power plant, they will use it.

So, NO. they should not have one.

I have to say I agree with the President, that we need to reduce the number of nukes we have. We have enough to wipe out the planet three or four times, and we do not need all of them. We can reduce the cost of defending many of these and the cost of maintaining them, by dismantling them.

[Krasch]

first, the US is always building new nuke weapons, to replace our old ones.

second - We are the only country to have used them, and we saw how horrible it was and how wrong it was.

third - Iran hates Israel and the US so much, it will do what ever it can to destroy them, if that means using a nuke weapon, or even some nuke waste from a nuke power plant, they will use it.

So, NO. they should not have one.

I have to say I agree with the President, that we need to reduce the number of nukes we have. We have enough to wipe out the planet three or four times, and we do not need all of them. We can reduce the cost of defending many of these and the cost of maintaining them, by dismantling them.

But there is a serious danger to the alternative.

The advantage, if one can call it that, of having enough nukes to wipe out the world three or four times over is that most every country knows if they actually start a war and use nukes that it's virtually guaranteed to be over for all of us, them included.

The disadvantage to reducing the number of weapons is the possibility that some country might actually consider a nuclear war winnable, and be MORE tempted to unleash them.

You say we've seen what nuclear weapons can do, and you ARE right in that. But was over 60 years ago and society's collective memory can at times be blissfully short at times.

A true sword of Damocles, this situation is...

[fmb]

Iran is known for being an oil producing country, and the world is slowly trying to wean itself off of oil. Whether that means clean coal, green energy, or nuclear, any oil producing country knows that it's future isn't what it currently excels in.

The technology to move away from oil doesn't exist. Recently, a big boost has been given to developing and refining technologies to move our economy away from oil. Unfortunately, I don't see these technologies being viable for 3-5 decades. Iran is barely a second tier nation. Iranian unemployment is rampant, the economy is rapidly shrinking, and inflation is skyrocketing. Those petrodollars have much better uses.


Energy is a big concern, and even our country liked the idea of more nuclear reactors providing power to this country when costs were very high.

Having nuclear electric generating reactors isn't a concern. Having centrifuges to enrich uranium is a very big concern. Enrich uranium to 5%-20% for reactor isn't a big deal; however, those same centrifuges can be used to enrich uranium to >35%, the level required for a nuclear weapon. Also, the Iranians are constructing nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities; these facilities will allow removing plutonium from the reprocessing stream. Plutonium has only one use: nuclear weapons.

Preventing Iran from being able to help themselves solve their problems or plan their future energy needs seems to me like it might piss them off a tad. I'm not saying they only have good intentions with nuclear reactors....

The theocratic leaders of Iran have always hated us. They hate us more than they hate the Israelis. (The US is the "Great Satan, Israel is the "little satan"). Again, reactors haven't been the problem; the nuclear enrichment and reprocessing programs are the concern.

My question to you is this: Is there any good answer to your question, or is this a global case of catch-22?
I don't think there is an easily reached answer to this question. I do know there is absolutely nothing positive about another country becoming a nuclear player.

[supersatch]

I agree with what Joe and BDJ have to say but think that we can actually take this further.

I think that We could actually make it a case against Iran to loosen sanctions against them and even allow for a monitored nuke power program under the pretense of them recognizing Israel. Saying that no program could be allowed to exist with such a hostile stance on a resident country. However, If Iran was to cease their violent stance against Israel and the United States, and recognize the State of Israel, Than maybe they could be welcomed into the rest of the world.

I figure that, wether we like it or not, they will eventually get the enrichment abilities that they seek. Why not use this opportunity to push our priorities and force them into peace?

It's like using twinkies to lure the fat kid into the Gym.

[CD]

The technology to move away from oil doesn't exist. Recently, a big boost has been given to developing and refining technologies to move our economy away from oil. Unfortunately, I don't see these technologies being viable for 3-5 decades. Iran is barely a second tier nation. Iranian unemployment is rampant, the economy is rapidly shrinking, and inflation is skyrocketing. Those petrodollars have much better uses.
Sure it exists. It's called nuclear power for electricity and oil only for transportation. That would save a TON of oil while they transition to electric vehicles. It exists, but that stuff takes time to implement, so if a part of their intentions involve nuclear power, I don't blame them.


Having nuclear electric generating reactors isn't a concern. Having centrifuges to enrich uranium is a very big concern. Enrich uranium to 5%-20% for reactor isn't a big deal; however, those same centrifuges can be used to enrich uranium to >35%, the level required for a nuclear weapon. Also, the Iranians are constructing nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities; these facilities will allow removing plutonium from the reprocessing stream. Plutonium has only one use: nuclear weapons.
I beg to differ. The flux capacitor uses plutonium. Oh wait... nevermind.
Then why can't we have people monitor the enrichment process so that they only send what they make to the generators?


The theocratic leaders of Iran have always hated us. They hate us more than they hate the Israelis. (The US is the "Great Satan, Israel is the "little satan"). Again, reactors haven't been the problem; the nuclear enrichment and reprocessing programs are the concern.

I don't think there is an easily reached answer to this question. I do know there is absolutely nothing positive about another country becoming a nuclear player.
You can't make someone like you, but you can give them less reason to dislike you. If we can discuss with them that if they attack Israel, we make them disappear, I'm pretty sure they don't hate Israel enough to die.

But yeah, nuclear weapons don't serve a purpose on a global scale. It's a doomsday weapon, and a "if I am gonna die, then so is everyone else" mentality.

[gemo]

You guys are taking about oil dependancy as a source of energy, but also look at what we make from oil, PLASTICS! YAY!

Back to the topic, No one can be trusted except for us meaning the USA. So I say no nukes for Iran, my opinion.

[fmb]

You guys are taking about oil dependancy as a source of energy, but also look at what we make from oil, PLASTICS! YAY!

True, hydrocarbons are used to provide many of our modern amenities; however, gasoline, diesel, and natural gas are our means of transporation fuel (gasoline, diesel) and electric power generation (natural gas).

[BackdoorJesus]

You can't make someone like you, but you can give them less reason to dislike you. If we can discuss with them that if they attack Israel, we make them disappear, I'm pretty sure they don't hate Israel enough to die.

you're pretty sure are you? you believe they will respond positively to threats? after what we've seen out of them since 1979? After 9-11, and all the suicide bombings since then for the cause of "Allah and Islam", and you're pretty sure THESE radical muslims don't hate someone else enough to die for that belief?

no nukes for these assholes, period.

[mainstay]

Shit no!!! Once they (Iran) have it then all the other Middle East countries will develop their own in response. The Cats almost out of the Bag now, but at least there's some hope as things stand now. I say let Obama try to at least have a few meetings with them thru Hillary. Of course their just stalling & talks won't lead to anything.

Israel can't really get the job done since they have no heavy bombers or "Stealth" aircraft. Only the U.S. with B-2's & B-1's along with the F-22 Raptor can take out their missile sites, command & control, & destroy most of their aircraft on the ground & Navy. Only the U.S. can deliver the new "Super Block Buster" bombs which is said to tunnel thru upto 25 ft of earth, then about 8ft of concrete. We can actually have another bomb travel down the same hole as as the last one dropped!!!!! Completely destroying their shit. Along with airborne Cruise Missile, they'll never no what hit them till it's over!!!:mstad:

[Scotty560]

I know I'm going to be ripped apart for this, but I may as well give my two cents.

Back to the topic, No one can be trusted except for us meaning the USA.

I see this as a naivety of today's culture. Why is it that a world super power is to hold the power to crush any force that stands against it. If we look into the formation of Israel, and much of the troubles they face today, is that the UK promised the land to several groups, for their own personal gain throughout WWI. The League of Nations decided the borders of Isreal and Palestine. (Just a note, my history may be wrong, but I'm piecing together what I think I've learned.) The West has often stuck their noses out in this area in an attempt to solve the worlds issues with the great "Western Thinking."

When thinking of an answer, we can't believe that as a nation, because they are a super power to be allowed to decide who has access to thee resources.

I am not saying that a nation that wants to destroy another group of people should be given the access to nuclear arms, but, when Israel was deemed an independent state in 1948(maybe?) the US gave support to Israel that it will back it's military operations. For Iran to make a nuclear strike on the state of Israel, would launch it into a full blown war against some of the greatest military forces that the world has seen to date. I know that there is a clash of ideologies, but realpolitik would click in here somewhere, and Iran would not take the risk of massive US backed invasions of Iran.

Now, to honestly say that Iran should have nuclear arms at this time is not a question that is easily answered, so I am not going to say, go ahead. But as a nation, the USA, should not have the right to dictate who should and who shouldn't have access to these technologies, they made the world a mess in the last century in the war against Communism, so its understandable to be cautious of who has a capability of striking back against all the US has done, but people should have access to these technologies.

Feel free to correct my history, but I think I got most of it close.

And that's my two cents.

[clenny]

Objectively, we don't have the right to tell any country they can or cannot have nuclear power as an energy resource. The problem is the fear that Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Would Iran actually use nuclear weapons against Israel or another country. I would say no in most scenarios. The main reason for Iran to have nukes is they feell and experience has shown them that the established nuclear states treat other states with nukes differently than they do those that don't have them.

Additionally, Iran probably feels that nukes would make it less likely to suffer a land-based attack by the USA. At one point, at the beginning of the war in Iraq, I imagine the Iranians were scared shitless. They had American troops on both sides: Iraq and Afghanistan. Had the Iraq war went differently; that is, if we had been able to exercise effective control immediately after taking Baghdad, we probably wouldn't have this as an issue because we basically would have been able to dictate terms to Iran. They would have acquiesced under the implicit threat of a land invasion by US troops.

Alas, because we didn't plan properly for the aftermath of victory in Iraq, we blew that opportunity. BTW, I was against going into Iraq, I'm just evaluating the situation with an as dispassionate eye as I can. If Iran gets the bomb, they will feel they can continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas with impunity. If the Obama administration can play some realpolitik and sway Syria away from acting as an Iranian proxy in its support of Hamas and Hezbollah, that might mitigate the risk somewhat.

Someone mentioned that they didn't think the Israelis would be able to pull off an attack that destroys Iran's nuclear weapons program. I beg to differ. They don't need to destroy it; they need only to delay and hinder it, which is the most likely scenario. Besides, the Arab states would secretly be happy if Israel were to do so since they fear the idea of a Persian hegemony in the region despite the fact the Iranians are muslims.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[MaxZorin]

I think until Iran eases their vitriolic stance against Israel we should do everything in our power to prevent them from acquiring a nuke.


Why Israel can have the only nuke in the area and nobody else can?
It's a weapon of mass destruction, no one should have one, but if one have it, let's all have one i think it's the only way to keep balance since no one seems to be "really" interested on leaving those bombs.

[CD]

Why Israel can have the only nuke in the area and nobody else can?
It's a weapon of mass destruction, no one should have one, but if one have it, let's all have one i think it's the only way to keep balance since no one seems to be "really" interested on leaving those bombs.
I just realized that the people who want guns in the hands of every citizen are the same people that only want the nukes in the hands of 1 or 2. However, I'd much rather have nobody have that deadly weapon.

[mainstay]

I just realized that the people who want guns in the hands of every citizen are the same people that only want the nukes in the hands of 1 or 2. However, I'd much rather have nobody have that deadly weapon.

Agreed,(underlined part) but you can't put the "Genie" back in the bottle!!!!

[fmb]

The disadvantage to reducing the number of weapons is the possibility that some country might actually consider a nuclear war winnable, and be MORE tempted to unleash them.

You are right with this line of thought. Personally, I'm afraid a push will be made to eliminate all multiple megaton warheads and keep only warheads with a yield < 500 kilotons. Smaller warheads (10K or so) aren't city killers; I'm afraid some countries may see the nuclear option as permissable.

I'd rather see only multiple megaton warheads kept in the arsenal. These warheads definitely are city killers (some small countries, too) and may make the political leadership seriously think about the consequences of using these weapons.

You say we've seen what nuclear weapons can do, and you ARE right in that. But was over 60 years ago and society's collective memory can at times be blissfully short at times.

A true sword of Damocles, this situation is...

This is so true; the horrible sights of the dead in concentration camps, the forced labor camps, and the incinerated cities become black and white films of something that happened so long ago.....

I think that We could actually make it a case against Iran to loosen sanctions against them and even allow for a monitored nuke power program under the pretense of them recognizing Israel. Saying that no program could be allowed to exist with such a hostile stance on a resident country. However, If Iran was to cease their violent stance against Israel and the United States, and recognize the State of Israel, Than maybe they could be welcomed into the rest of the world.

Won't work; already been tried with multiple UN sanctions and orders. Besides, Iran CANNOT accept Israel; Islam doesn't allow the recognition of Israel or rights of Jews. The Quran says the Jews received the true word of God (Allah), but chose to manipulate God's word to suit the Jews (and kept these twisted words in the Torah).

Because of this, Muslims will never have peace with the Jews. The Quran has a verse which says a day will come when Muslims will slay the Jews. Even trees will say, "O Muslim, come, look behind me. There is a Jew. Slay him."

[fmb]

I see this as a naivety of today's culture. Why is it that a world super power is to hold the power to crush any force that stands against it. If we look into the formation of Israel, and much of the troubles they face today, is that the UK promised the land to several groups, for their own personal gain throughout WWI. The League of Nations decided the borders of Isreal and Palestine. (Just a note, my history may be wrong, but I'm piecing together what I think I've learned.) The West has often stuck their noses out in this area in an attempt to solve the worlds issues with the great "Western Thinking."

Your take on history is pretty damn close; close enough to not want to split hairs....

When thinking of an answer, we can't believe that as a nation, because they are a super power to be allowed to decide who has access to thee resources.

No one has ever attempted to deny access to nuclear power, only to prevent the nuclear fuel cycle from being utilized by the country. The US volunteered to supply Iran with nuclear fuel. The US asked other countries (including Russia) to provide the Iranians with fuel. Iran refused these offers; without the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear weapons would be out of reach.

For Iran to make a nuclear strike on the state of Israel, would launch it into a full blown war against some of the greatest military forces that the world has seen to date. I know that there is a clash of ideologies, but realpolitik would click in here somewhere, and Iran would not take the risk of massive US backed invasions of Iran.

The US cannot invade Iran. Our military has been worn down in Iraq and Afghanistan; the US doesn't have the resources to perform this feat. Our only options are air and sea power. New surface to air missile (SAM) systems are on order from the Russians. The Iranians are well aware of our strategic and tactical limitations and are using this knowledge to their advantage.

[CD]

By keeping nuclear weapons, we allow ourselves the option to use them... but can anyone here let me know if/when we use it on a country, what the ratio of terrorists killed is to the total number of killed? It just seems to me that the idea of keeping nuclear weapons is like keeping C4 in the house in case you have an ant problem.

[fmb]

By keeping nuclear weapons, we allow ourselves the option to use them... but can anyone here let me know if/when we use it on a country, what the ratio of terrorists killed is to the total number of killed? It just seems to me that the idea of keeping nuclear weapons is like keeping C4 in the house in case you have an ant problem.

Nuclear weapons aren't for the destruction of a terrorist or a terrorist organization, they're used for the destruction of armies, resources of armies, and a nation's political/military leadership. Achmed the Terrorist shouldn't worry about these types of weapons being used against him.

There will never be a day where the world is completely free of nuclear weapons. Someone will keep one just to make sure someone else didn't hold one or two back.... (Trust, but verify!)

C4 shouldn't be used against ants? How long have you been living in SC?? Haven't you noticed those vile, orange mounds, housing FIRE ants?? It takes a nuke to eliminate a mound of those....

Now, back on topic....

[gemo]

But as a nation, the USA, should not have the right to dictate who should and who shouldn't have access to these technologies, they made the world a mess in the last century in the war against Communism, so its understandable to be cautious of who has a capability of striking back against all the US has done, but people should have access to these technologies.


I hope you read my response Scotty560.
As an American, I want my country to be always on top. As number 1 we should do what ever it take to stay on top, which means at time the US must police the rest of the world.

Some people think this thinking is wrong, but look, if the average American want to keep driving everyday and go shopping at the mall and drink starbucks every morning this is what needs to be done.

Do you like to keep your IPOD?

[licupssy]

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China (the permanent members of the UN Security Council).

Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and possess nuclear weapons. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.

The treaty was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign. The signing parties decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions upon meeting in New York City on May 11, 1995. The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.[1]

Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently (as of 2006) resumed development of a uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government states its enrichment program is part of its civilian nuclear energy program. This is allowed under Article IV of the NPT. In 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran in noncompliance with its NPT safeguards agreement in an unusual non-consensus decision,[15] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[43]

Considering the NPT, no Iran shouldn't be allow to develop nuclear weapons.

You also have to realize the bombs today are a lot more powerful then the one's used in WWII. You also must note the prime use of these weapons is to kill large populations of people and what has to be considered is the after mate damages from nuclear fall out.

If you were a child during the 50's like myself in a known nuclear strike zone, you be familiar with nuclear warfare drills on at least a monthly basis. It's not fun hiding under your wooden desk. I don't think you really want this for your kids and frankly the school desk used today would provide little if any safety.

[Krasch]

Considering the NPT, no Iran shouldn't be allow to develop nuclear weapons.

You also have to realize the bombs today are a lot more powerful then the one's used in WWII. You also must note the prime use of these weapons is to kill large populations of people and what has to be considered is the after mate damages from nuclear fall out.

If you were a child during the 50's like myself in a known nuclear strike zone, you be familiar with nuclear warfare drills on at least a monthly basis. It's not fun hiding under your wooden desk. I don't think you really want this for your kids and frankly the school desk used today would provide little if any safety.
Even the old school desks would have been of questionable protection at best.

[BackdoorJesus]

We used to joke around in elementary school that the only reason they had us hide under our desks for an air raid was so they could clean us up desk & all in one shovel load.

That was in the 70's, BTW...

Ah...cold war humor...and it still works today.

[licupssy]

Even the old school desks would have been of questionable protection at best.

Realistically the only thing that it might have helped was to protect you from shattered glass. I lived about 5 miles from a anti-ballistic missile silo base. If the Russians were on target our goose was cooked.

We used to joke around in elementary school that the only reason they had us hide under our desks for an air raid was so they could clean us up desk & all in one shovel load.

That was in the 70's, BTW...

Ah...cold war humor...and it still works today.

I always wondered if they kept that up. You would have never got under our high school desk. When I entered the Navy we did see training files on nuclear attack. Aircraft Carriers were design to withstand the attack and have a wash down system to clean away the nuclear fallout. If you've seen the news the Chinese have come with a missile that is suppose to be able to destroy a super carrier. I think we may have had one drill against nuclear attack. Not much to see since you lock down all the hatches. We did have one outgoing drill. I got to be on the fuel crew for the delivery plane, an A-6, so we got to see them mount the bomb on the plane and remove it. The marine guard was on a shoot on sight order so very few other than those involved got to see it. Even if you accidentally broke the line you were dead meat. No cameras were allowed so the only thing I have is the memory.


Hooray for the Chinese, for they have developed a super cool new anti-ship ballistic missile with low radar signature and unpredictable flight path which can destroy US Navy Super-carriers on one go! Oh, wait.

According to the latest intelligence report, the new missile—a modified Dong Feng 21—can strick carriers or any other warship within a 2,000 kilometer range from its launching point. The new super-weapon carries a warhead powerful enough to sink a supercarrier in a single strike, travelling at mach 10 (ten times the speed of sound), which enables it to reach the maximum range target in less than 12 minutes.

[Krasch]

We used to joke around in elementary school that the only reason they had us hide under our desks for an air raid was so they could clean us up desk & all in one shovel load.

That was in the 70's, BTW...

Ah...cold war humor...and it still works today.

I recall a similar line from Tom Clancy in one of his books about those personal floatation devices you get on airplanes essentially being only useful for identifying dead bodies amongst the wreckage.

Like anyone would survive most any impact of a plane going around 300 mph... Miracle on the Hudson being the very rare exception.

[licupssy]

I recall a similar line from Tom Clancy in one of his books about those personal floatation devices you get on airplanes essentially being only useful for identifying dead bodies amongst the wreckage.

Like anyone would survive most any impact of a plane going around 300 mph... Miracle on the Hudson being the very rare exception.

If your flying cross country, you're traveling at around 600 mph. Crash into a mountain and I doubt if you'd have time to put on a floatation device on.

[Krasch]

If your flying cross country, you're traveling at around 600 mph. Crash into a mountain and I doubt if you'd have time to put on a floatation device on.

300... 600... The only real difference there is how smooth a paté you'll become on impact. lol

[Ray Gamma]

Well the problem with Iran having enriched uranium and possibly nukes is that there is no big brother in the region to keep them in check. North Korea has China, and the Chinese can keep Jong at bay a bit so that the US does not have to intervene. There is no major player in the region for Iran. The fear is that a middle eastern arabic nation with nukes will potentially attempt to dominate the entire region militarily, not by war necessarily, but through perception.

I say no.

But I think the President is smart to consider all things.

[licupssy]

Well the problem with Iran having enriched uranium and possibly nukes is that there is no big brother in the region to keep them in check. North Korea has China, and the Chinese can keep Jong at bay a bit so that the US does not have to intervene. There is no major player in the region for Iran. The fear is that a middle eastern arabic nation with nukes will potentially attempt to dominate the entire region militarily, not by war necessarily, but through perception.

I say no.

But I think the President is smart to consider all things.

Really not having a major player next door has little to do with it unless you plan on invading Iran. True, the Chinese could easily over run North Korea and with their vast population, no matter how many soldiers they loss, they have millions of young people that could be inducted as their replacements.

Obama's problem is that it is a violation under International treaty for Iran to build nuclear weapons. But with Russia, China and France at the top of the list of signers of the NPT we have little support to do much about it. Unlike Iraq, a ground war is too uncertain an outcome for the US to act on their own. We have sufficient fire power with our nuclear missile subs to blow up any possible threat they could be to us. But, you have he potential that that could lead to WWIII.

[MaxZorin]

As an American, I want my country to be always on top. As number 1 we should do what ever it take to stay on top...

Ain't the Nazis said the same thing to the Germans in the first par of the last century? but they were wrong and evil and the rest of the world needed to stop them right?
I thought, Americans, i've already heard this speech before and the result was a second world war, millions of people executed, bomb raids, concentration camps and a lesson some people never gets to understand.
please, i admire your country, you have some thing, we citizens from third world countries like mine, could never get to achieve, but if you insist about telling everyone else that you rocks and we're shit and also you're our big daddy who came here to protect us from ourselves and our enemies, i promise you that this shit i't gonna blow on your face ("again" if you really think that the 9/11 was a foreign attack)
In fair terms, stop treating the rest of the world like children, what would you think if the biggest population and also the biggest air force in the world, China, started to say the same thing?
As French said before: Libertè, Egalitè, Fraternitè!

[Krasch]

Ain't the Nazis said the same thing to the Germans in the first par of the last century? but they were wrong and evil and the rest of the world needed to stop them right?
I thought, Americans, i've already heard this speech before and the result was a second world war, millions of people executed, bomb raids, concentration camps and a lesson some people never gets to understand.
please, i admire your country, you have some thing, we citizens from third world countries like mine, could never get to achieve, but if you insist about telling everyone else that you rocks and we're shit and also you're our big daddy who came here to protect us from ourselves and our enemies, i promise you that this shit i't gonna blow on your face ("again" if you really think that the 9/11 was a foreign attack)
In fair terms, stop treating the rest of the world like children, what would you think if the biggest population and also the biggest air force in the world, China, started to say the same thing?
As French said before: Libertè, Egalitè, Fraternitè!
Except that there are at least two major problems with your premise.

1. The Nazi's did say much the same sort of thing, but their expansionist annexing of other countries is something the US hasn't even come close to attempting.

2. China DOES essentially say exactly that. While their leadership may use slightly more diplomatic verbage, they believe by and large as a people that they are the chosen ones, the master race, and superior to everyone else especially all the roundeye gwai barbarians i.e. us North Americans.

As for the French, they know another word even more. "Capituler", BTW your accent usage is incorrect. You've used grave accents where acute accents are appropriate. "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" is the correct usage.

[CD]

Except that there are at least two major problems with your premise.

1. The Nazi's did say much the same sort of thing, but their expansionist annexing of other countries is something the US hasn't even come close to attempting.

2. China DOES essentially say exactly that. While their leadership may use slightly more diplomatic verbage, they believe by and large as a people that they are the chosen ones, the master race, and superior to everyone else especially all the roundeye gwai barbarians i.e. us North Americans.

As for the French, they know another word even more. "Capituler", BTW your accent usage is incorrect. You've used grave accents where acute accents are appropriate. "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" is the correct usage.
1) Can't argue too much about that, but I would say that some in Iraq would disagree.

2) What percent of this country does China own? I'm sure that they may think they are better then us, but until we can stand on our own and stop borrowing $trillions from them, we aren't in the position to speak too ill of them.

French Spelling/Grammar Nazi?

[dan18apple]

The issue of preventing Iran having nuclear weapons is nonsense and irrevelant. The reality why many nations don't develop nuclear weapons is simply it requires too may levels of technologies combined to make something militarily practical. Israel days are numbered. Once the Peoples Republic of China starting producing ultra low cost micro chip processors , e.g cpu, and begin to flood the world market with them to, you can kiss good bye states like Israel who are heavily reliant on air support. Ground armour and air support will have no advantage, as many countries particular unable to invest in expensive Armour or Aircraft or Nuclear weapon will be in the postion to create low cost infantry anti-tank, stinger missiles (hand held anti-aircraft weapon) and anti-missile technology.Existing missile technology will become so devastating and lethal that something like the entire Japanese Navy being wiped out by the People of China armed forces is becoming more of reality day by day.

Persian Hegemony died out centuries ago like the Roman Empire, any one who thinks like the Romans today is naive about their supremacy. Ultimatley wars and politics settlements are decided by the people within a country not the underlying military technologies involved which are simply tools.

The most dangerous weapon in the world is not a nuclear or biological weapon, although they do have a dangerous and lethal impact on a society. The most dangerous weapon is inreality a child(an individual) learning to read or write,and becoming generally more educated in some form of educational discipline and picking up a skill.

No amount of ego or attitudes of supremacy will prevent countries from seeking their true potential, such as Iran or North Korea. Unfortunately, particularly in the Western world there are unfounded beliefs in their superiority to extend power over others in the present, simply because in the previous centuries the West was able through colonialism or imperialism to do so. The evaporation and decline of power and influence by West has happen at a rate faster than anyone expected, since the second war world and decolonialisation of the world, while also accompanying loss economic supremacy in world trade which significant impact can not be ignored in the overall picture.

The real challenge is whether the electorate within the West are willing to focus on the real problems confronting them rather than wasting their money on wasteful military foreign expeditions which detract money from much need investment on public infrastructure, education and techologies that assist economic wealth and employment within their respective nations.

[Krasch]

1) Can't argue too much about that, but I would say that some in Iraq would disagree.

2) What percent of this country does China own? I'm sure that they may think they are better then us, but until we can stand on our own and stop borrowing $trillions from them, we aren't in the position to speak too ill of them.

French Spelling/Grammar Nazi?

Regarding #1, those some in Iraq would be wrong. They have already had democratuc elections there. One might have had a case with the initial provisional government, but once they had free elections, it's an Iraqi government for Iraqis. I don't see any Americans in their government there, nor are the Americans claiming the country as theirs. Big difference there as relates to the Nazi parallel and a crucial one.

As to #2, China has had that position from day one, long before the US owed them any significant amount of money. It's the same core reason they annexed Tibet. They wanted it, and the native Tibetan government and people were seen as lesser beings whose opinions and desires were of no value. Same reason the Nazi's could justify the killing of Jews and other undesirables.

Grammar Nazi? No just a clarification as an incorrect accent in French can totally change the meaning of a word. That's why my note was added as a "BTW"

[Krasch]

[COLOR="Blue"]The issue of preventing Iran having nuclear weapons is nonsense and irrevelant. The reality why many nations don't develop nuclear weapons is simply it requires too may levels of technologies combined to make something militarily practical. Israel days are numbered. Once the Peoples Republic of China starting producing ultra low cost micro chip processors , e.g cpu, and begin to flood the world market with them to, you can kiss good bye states like Israel who are heavily reliant on air support. Ground armour and air support will have no advantage, as many countries particular unable to invest in expensive Armour or Aircraft or Nuclear weapon will be in the postion to create low cost infantry anti-tank, stinger missiles (hand held anti-aircraft weapon) and anti-missile technology.Existing missile technology will become so devastating and lethal that something like the entire Japanese Navy being wiped out by the People of China armed forces is becoming more of reality day by day.

True enough provided they can actually make decent quality products, something they have trouble doing with a lot of things.

One also cannot discount the force multiplier that superior training can provide an armed force.

[fmb]

Obama's problem is that it is a violation under International treaty for Iran to build nuclear weapons. But with Russia, China and France at the top of the list of signers of the NPT we have little support to do much about it.
Good point, Licu. Not a single country has said Iran cannot produce nuclear energy; the point has been the ability to produce enriched (whether high, or low) uranium. Enrichment is a dual use (weapons or energy) technology.

Getting support from China or Russia about the Iranian problem will not occur. Why would they assist us in removing one hell of a thorn from our political side?

I thought, Americans, i've already heard this speech before and the result was a second world war, millions of people executed, bomb raids, concentration camps and a lesson some people never gets to understand.??!
Max, you should revisit your history books. The US pursued a political strategy of isolationism after the first world war. The US stayed out of the politics of other countries, unless the other countrys' politics directly impacted the US or countries within the US influence in the Caribbean or Latin America. The US became involved after being attacked by one of the Axis powers; only then did the US directly enter the European and Asian fray.

The Nazi's had invaded several countries in Europe, were conducting attacks on Allied powers shipping in Asia, and were providing technological support to Japan. Concentration camps created because the US became involved??
Dude, the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years. Do you really believe a two hundred year old US is responsible for that??

In fair terms, stop treating the rest of the world like children...
Very good point. Maybe our leaders will learn this.

[CD]

Regarding #1, those some in Iraq would be wrong. They have already had democratuc elections there. One might have had a case with the initial provisional government, but once they had free elections, it's an Iraqi government for Iraqis. I don't see any Americans in their government there, nor are the Americans claiming the country as theirs. Big difference there as relates to the Nazi parallel and a crucial one.
I said some. I know that since we have taken soldiers out, it is better for our world image, but a few there are probably still nutjobs that think we are controlling them there with troop presence.

As to #2, China has had that position from day one, long before the US owed them any significant amount of money. It's the same core reason they annexed Tibet. They wanted it, and the native Tibetan government and people were seen as lesser beings whose opinions and desires were of no value. Same reason the Nazi's could justify the killing of Jews and other undesirables.
Oh definitely, but when a 300 pound bully (that knows kung fu and is strapping assault rifles) is looking down at you, try not to poke fun at him. In case anyone is curious, I see China as being that 300 pound bully right now. We are hurting too bad to really be anywhere near their level of power/money.

Grammar Nazi? No just a clarification as an incorrect accent in French can totally change the meaning of a word. That's why my note was added as a "BTW"
Most people here don't speak French, so I have no doubt that you are correct, but please don't tell me you've never heard the "Grammar Nazi" said here before.

[Krasch]

I said some. I know that since we have taken soldiers out, it is better for our world image, but a few there are probably still nutjobs that think we are controlling them there with troop presence.


Oh definitely, but when a 300 pound bully (that knows kung fu and is strapping assault rifles) is looking down at you, try not to poke fun at him. In case anyone is curious, I see China as being that 300 pound bully right now. We are hurting too bad to really be anywhere near their level of power/money.


Most people here don't speak French, so I have no doubt that you are correct, but please don't tell me you've never heard the "Grammar Nazi" said here before.

True enough points, and while I'm no great fan of the French or even the Quebecois (which are pretty much another animal entirely) I did take eight years of French in school back in the dawn of time thanks to our "wonderful" policy of multiculturalism that made it mandatory.

[Krasch]

Max, you should revisit your history books. The US pursued a political strategy of isolationism after the first world war. The US stayed out of the politics of other countries, unless the other countrys' politics directly impacted the US or countries within the US influence in the Caribbean or Latin America. The US became involved after being attacked by one of the Axis powers; only then did the US directly enter the European and Asian fray.

The Nazi's had invaded several countries in Europe, were conducting attacks on Allied powers shipping in Asia, and were providing technological support to Japan. Concentration camps created because the US became involved??
Dude, the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years. Do you really believe a two hundred year old US is responsible for that??

To be fair, depending on where one is from Max might be quoting from his history books. Of course said books could be wrong as well. Also, the US was only quasi-neutral as they were shipping supplies to Britain before Pearl Harbor.

Meanwhile at the same time the Wolfpack U-boat patrols were also attacking Allied shipping in the Atlantic as well, including US ships headed to the UK. I do believe though that Max was referring to the Japanese-American interment camps as "concentration camps".

[MaxZorin]

Except that there are at least two major problems with your premise.

1. The Nazi's did say much the same sort of thing, but their expansionist annexing of other countries is something the US hasn't even come close to attempting.

2. China DOES essentially say exactly that. While their leadership may use slightly more diplomatic verbage, they believe by and large as a people that they are the chosen ones, the master race, and superior to everyone else especially all the roundeye gwai barbarians i.e. us North Americans.

As for the French, they know another word even more. "Capituler", BTW your accent usage is incorrect. You've used grave accents where acute accents are appropriate. "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" is the correct usage.

About the accents, you're absolutely right, sorry about that and thanks for correcting me.
About the issue nº 1 i couldn't agree with this. in fact, it's a well known fact by everyone in this world that america likes to get involved on any country where they can develop assets. You don´t go to war just to save the day, you do it because you need a stable government who sell you anything you need at the lowest price, or let you put you enterprises in those third world countries where the workers do their job for only cents.
I'm sorry but the fact say that you really develop some kind of expansionism, not like germans in the first part of the last century, but something like that.
About the issue nº2, maybe you're right, chinese seems to do that, but they don't invade my country with their propaganda as america does, that's why i used for example.

Finally, i'd like to thank to all of you who make this kind of conversation possible,it's great to talk about this topics without getting hurt neither offending people. It means a lot of the courtesy of everyone of you.
(Please excuse my english, i'm a bit rusty)

[dan18apple]

This topic of discussion is getting off track. It should be about whether it is possible or not to prevent a nuclear Iran. So far the discussion has now progressed to expanisionist or intervensionist policies of the United States or any nation, which is a whole new topic, which someone should start outside this topic.

[BackdoorJesus]

I have to agree here with dan.

MaxZorin I can appreciate that you, as a resident of a country that has characteristically had to take a subordinate role to the USA (as do most South American countries), have an axe to grind as far as our "imperialism" etc goes, but let's keep this thread on topic shall we?

[Juan.Camaney]

This is just me speaking here, but any country who has nukes and doesn't want another country to have them and claims that the reason the other country cannot have them is because it is dangerous, should get rid of it their own nukes as well. Its not like the whole stock pile of other weapons we have can't blow the earth into smithereens anyway.

I always disliked that about american theories. Do as we say, not as we do.

[Dr. Weezil]

To me the situation is actually very simple:

Iran isn't building or planning on building nuclear weapons; they are enriching uranium for power purposes.

Let's all repeat that "Iran isn't building nuclear weapons."

Now that may sound like a pretty blanket and perhaps overly naive statement, but here're the facts. The IAEA has said as much so has sixteen United States intelligence gathering services. Now, who are the only people who keep on this "Iran's building nuclear weapons" nonsense? The same assholes that lied about Saddam Hussein's "Nookular" Bombs. Oh, and those crybabies in Israel, the ones who want to start a war with the Persians, make the United States fight it for them, and then sit back, watch, laugh, and enjoy the spoils when Russia joins the fight to defend their trading partner.

Technically, it takes a level of refinement far in excess of their capabilities to produce uranium for any kind of weapon, something like 3% purity for power purposes versus 90+% for a bomb. How do we know this? Because all materials that could be used for enrichment are monitored, controlled, and subject to international inspection prior to entering the country. But we are supposed to suspend reason when the same liars tell us they're years, weeks, DAYS away from nuking the free world and ::gasp:: poor, little, maligned, picked on, teeny, tiny, beacon of beauty Israel?

As Zappa used to say. PEEHEEEW!!!

All things considered, I trust the word of the Iranians more than I do the United States and definitely, absolutely, positively more than Israel. They lie enough; the burden of proof is on them to prove their trustworthiness, NOT the Iranians to try and prove a negative.

[MaxZorin]

I'm sorry i didn't mean to get the topic off the track, i was just trying to show all of you my motivation about the same issue, why Iran have the divine right to have to go nuclear as any other country already had.
I hope i didn't disturbed anyone in here, please accept my apologies.

[licupssy]

To me the situation is actually very simple:
Iran isn't building or planning on building nuclear weapons; they are enriching uranium for power purposes.

The IAEA has said as much so has sixteen United States intelligence gathering services.



The IAEA has no idea whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The US isn't the only country concerned with the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. See:infcirc749 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2009/infcirc749.pdf)

I have no idea of there being 16 foreign Intelligence gathering agencies within the US government. I like to see a full list of them. Even so, they would not be leaking any classified information to the general public anyway.

Besides crude nuclear weapons can be made from ore containing 20% Uranium 235 so it doesn't rule out the possibility of ore being enriched for Light water reactors being enriched to that point.

As far as Iraq goes there is still theories that WMD were shipped out of country or possibly been buried at some unknown locations. You have to take into fact that no intelligent leader after agreeing to UN inspections would subject his country to invasion for something not in it's possession.


Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
You have before you my report on Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, including all declared low enriched uranium. As the Report states, contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, or its work on heavy water related projects. Nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol, which, as with other countries with comprehensive safeguards agreements, is a prerequisite for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. Iran has not permitted the Agency to perform the required design information verification at the IR-40 reactor currently under construction, and it has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part on the early provision of design information.

The Agency regrettably was unable to make any progress on the remaining issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions of Iran´s nuclear programme because of lack of cooperation by Iran. For the Agency to be able to make progress, Iran needs to provide substantive information and access to relevant documentation, locations and individuals in connection with all of the outstanding issues.
Unless Iran implements the transparency measures and the Additional Protocol, as required by the Security Council, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. I again urge Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date and to unblock this stalemated situation. At the same time, I urge the Member States which have provided information to the Agency to agree to the Agency´s sharing of this information with Iran.

Finally, I am hopeful that the apparent fresh approach by the international community to dialogue with Iran will give new impetus to the efforts to resolve this long-standing issue in a way that provides the required assurances about the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, while assuring Iran of its right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

[licupssy]

I'm sorry i didn't mean to get the topic off the track, i was just trying to show all of you my motivation about the same issue, why Iran have the divine right to have to go nuclear as any other country already had.
I hope i didn't disturbed anyone in here, please accept my apologies.

Problem is the NPT wasn't a religious agreement. Anyway, you would have to consider what God is giving the divine right, you have to take the religious viewpoint against war and use of such weapons.

[Krasch]

The IAEA has no idea whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The US isn't the only country concerned with the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. See:infcirc749 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2009/infcirc749.pdf)

I have no idea of there being 16 foreign Intelligence gathering agencies within the US government. I like to see a full list of them. Even so, they would not be leaking any classified information to the general public anyway.

Besides crude nuclear weapons can be made from ore containing 20% Uranium 235 so it doesn't rule out the possibility of ore being enriched for Light water reactors being enriched to that point.

As far as Iraq goes there is still theories that WMD were shipped out of country or possibly been buried at some unknown locations. You have to take into fact that no intelligent leader after agreeing to UN inspections would subject his country to invasion for something not in it's possession.
Have to agree.

They may not be able to produce good nuclear weapons with enriched materials, but even a crappy "dirty" nuclear weapon could be incredibly devastating.

Weapons like that are a little like shotgun shells. If half the shot actually manages to cause damage, it may not be nearly as much as ALL the shot hitting you, but it's still likely to seriously ruin your day. When we're talking weapons with the power of a nuke, it doesn't have to be at all good by today's standards to cause immense harm.

As to Iraq, even the UN inspectors at the time admitted just because they hadn't yet found any didn't mean none existed. Hell, there might still be WMDs buried in stashes we don't know about.

[dan18apple]

I wish all this incredible stupid scare mongering would stop, this issue about nuclear dirty bomb is a reality, you cannot stop it's creation any more than you can stop people getting guns. The expertise is out there you can't do anything about it. Enriched uranium is like a product it is available on the world market like assault rifles. People are just going to have invest their money in jobs and industry, things that really matter, rather than chasing down any lead to enriched uranium.

[Krasch]

I wish all this incredible stupid scare mongering would stop, this issue about nuclear dirty bomb is a reality, you cannot stop it's creation any more than you can stop people getting guns. The expertise is out there you can't do anything about it. Enriched uranium is like a product it is available on the world market like assault rifles. People are just going to have invest their money in jobs and industry, things that really matter, rather than chasing down any lead to enriched uranium.

It's not exactly scare mongering, it's being rightfully concerned about the potential threat a quasi-rogue state like Iran would be if it managed to manufacture nuclear weapons, especially considering it's highly unfriendly stance toward the West where many of us happen to live...

[dan18apple]

It's not exactly scare mongering, it's being rightfully concerned about the potential threat a quasi-rogue state like Iran would be if it managed to manufacture nuclear weapons, especially considering it's highly unfriendly stance toward the West where many of us happen to live...

Your fooling yourself about whether you can contain what you may consider a rogue state. The United States could be considered a rogue state as it actively interferes in the affairs of other countries more than any country.

The behaviour of the United States over Iran will only lead to another stepping stone to World War Three. The United States can't fight unlimited conflicts. It almost went bankrupt fighting Germany and Japan during the Second World War. If the Soviet Armed forces didn't defeat the Germans at Stalingrad and Kursk the war would turned out differently. That was a global war lasting only 6 years, if you include the confrontation in the North Atlantic between the US Navy and the Germany Navy, two years before the official recognised date of the beginning of the Second World War.

At present US military has too much expensive equipment and munitions. An over dependance on military technology, because of deteriorating personnel standards and internal political considerations(such as everyone at political level want to use military force, but inreality US citizens don't want to die in a minor conflict, like Afghanistan, which is why there is never sufficient troop numbers from US citizens to fight in these minor conflicts). No amount of propaganda will cover that up. A disproportionate number of the US Marine corp and US Military in general is from Mexico and Latin America, 60 % of all US troops in Iraq were immigrants pending application. 14 % of all the US Army is now Native American coming from poverty and abuse from Reservations as a result of mismanagement by the Indian Affairs Department within the US Government. I bet you they still love being treated as foreigners in their own country no matter how they sugar coat their improved situation and recognition of their political rights.Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam will fade into insignificance compared to the cost in men and material required to fight World War Three, which is why i keep arguing for avoidance of investing in wasteful minor conflicts and focusing on economy, industry and jobs to prepare for this huge global war should it happen. The argument that fighting these minor conflicts will prevent a big war is a nonsense.

[BackdoorJesus]

wow and now who is "scare mongering" dan?

Cut & dried - Iran signed on to the NPT & then proceeded to violate it by their actions. This is not the behavior of a responsible, or dare I say, trustworthy state - it is the behavior of a state who has shown, time and again, that they will say whatever they can to get what they want, and then once they have it, turn an about face with complete disregard for the consequences.

They proved back in the late 1970's, when they took our civilian personnel hostage for over a year, their complete lack of diplomacy & tolerance for other nations' ideologies, and in the 30 years since then have done little else to show the world anything to the contrary.

Now folks who have short memories & little personal experience with these folks want to just forget about all that and be buddies. Particularly on account of how the US has always been the terrible oppressor, keeping these poor innocent people down all this time... :jerkit:

I have personal experience with this country, its people and its culture, having lived there for about a year & a half back in the 70's when my dad worked out there for a private firm contracted to the Iranian military to train them on some RADAR & such that we gave them back then. I always thought it was a great place with some decent people, but even as a kid I had issues with their lack of tolerance for others and their countless moral hypocrisies.

Honestly, I had hoped that things were changing out there, and that they were ready to join the international community. Then I saw something recently that really disappointed me. I was just watching a documentary about Iran, shot in the last six months or so I believe, and it was very telling. It showed a lovely country, with seemingly wonderful friendly & interesting people, and oh my, the beautiful architecture...everything cool I remember about the place I lived for a little while as a kid.

Then they showed the interior of a mosque at prayer time, and tried to explain how everything was so similar to Christian services, how these folks were just like us, etc - and then they showed a huge banner stretched across an archway in the mosque, which read, in Farsi, "DEATH TO ISRAEL".

That's the kind of sentiment these folks perpetuate. In their "church", no less. :usuck:

You really think these folks would be responsible with nukes? Are you really that naive?

[Juan.Camaney]

Cut & dried - Iran signed on to the NPT & then proceeded to violate it by their actions. This is not the behavior of a responsible, or dare I say, trustworthy state - it is the behavior of a state who has shown, time and again, that they will say whatever they can to get what they want, and then once they have it, turn an about face with complete disregard for the consequences.

Like fighting terrorists with torture?

Everyone does this. Do as I say, not as I do, but when I do something bad in the name of justice, it is justified?

[dan18apple]

wow and now who is "scare mongering" dan?

Cut & dried - Iran signed on to the NPT & then proceeded to violate it by their actions. This is not the behavior of a responsible, or dare I say, trustworthy state - it is the behavior of a state who has shown, time and again, that they will say whatever they can to get what they want, and then once they have it, turn an about face with complete disregard for the consequences.

They proved back in the late 1970's, when they took our civilian personnel hostage for over a year, their complete lack of diplomacy & tolerance for other nations' ideologies, and in the 30 years since then have done little else to show the world anything to the contrary.

Now folks who have short memories & little personal experience with these folks want to just forget about all that and be buddies. Particularly on account of how the US has always been the terrible oppressor, keeping these poor innocent people down all this time... :jerkit:

I have personal experience with this country, its people and its culture, having lived there for about a year & a half back in the 70's when my dad worked out there for a private firm contracted to the Iranian military to train them on some RADAR & such that we gave them back then. I always thought it was a great place with some decent people, but even as a kid I had issues with their lack of tolerance for others and their countless moral hypocrisies.

Honestly, I had hoped that things were changing out there, and that they were ready to join the international community. Then I saw something recently that really disappointed me. I was just watching a documentary about Iran, shot in the last six months or so I believe, and it was very telling. It showed a lovely country, with seemingly wonderful friendly & interesting people, and oh my, the beautiful architecture...everything cool I remember about the place I lived for a little while as a kid.

Then they showed the interior of a mosque at prayer time, and tried to explain how everything was so similar to Christian services, how these folks were just like us, etc - and then they showed a huge banner stretched across an archway in the mosque, which read, in Farsi, "DEATH TO ISRAEL".

That's the kind of sentiment these folks perpetuate. In their "church", no less. :usuck:

You really think these folks would be responsible with nukes? Are you really that naive?

As usual people over look completely Iran's recent history, particular the fact the United States actively was involved in overthrowing democractic elected government in Iran installing the terrible Shah regime during the 1950's, which was incredibly oppressive and made the country now a have in-built hatred of the United States among it's people. For 30 years the The CIA gloated over the Shah's installing in Iran as an achievement. Well is all turned shit. I think people in the West are just going to have accept a world not on their terms.

If the West wants to waste what good resources and civilisation it has on worthless foreign imposition plans, so be it. I just think it better to solve one owns national problems. The Roman and Persian Empire both collapsed because they wasted themselves in worthless minor interfering conflict. The Romans from fighting the Persians, Huns and various Germanic tribes. The Persians from fighting the Mongols, Afghans and people of River Indus(what is now Pakistan).

It is interesting right now is that the United States is getting wasted in the exact same areas that the Persian Empire got wasted. Its also the same area the Macedonians (Hellenistic empire) and the British Empire also got wasted. Oh and let us not forget the Soviet Union, that communist empire which scared the shit out West, forcing huge amounts of money to diverted from public requirements, such as education, job training and health to the industrial military complex to invest in expensive weapon systems, not just nuclear missiles.

Its funny how these arrogant empires which are full their self importances, should have become more respective, tolerant of our nations and focus on their internal development such as economy, wealth and prosperity within their society instead of wasting their civilisation. They should have learnt from Chinise civilisation which did learn these aspects.

What can you do!, if a civilisation doesnot want to learn from history there nothing to be done. I am not naive, just realistic and think people should focus on the important domestic things.

[BackdoorJesus]

I'm sorry, but I think that my pointing out a banner shouting "DEATH TO ISRAEL", inside of a mosque, shown in a documentary shot within the last year, indicates pretty freakin' clearly that I am most certainly NOT overlooking recent history.

That banner speaks volumes about Iran's continued, current state-sanctioned intolerance of anyone non-Islamic, particularly of anyone who is Jewish, and further gives merit to the reluctance of other states in the International Community to allow Iran nuclear armament.

Are we done talking about why Iran should or should not have nukes now? Because every post I'm reading seems more more about the USA's foreign policy and less and less about whether or not an aggressive and intolerant Iran should be permitted, by the International Community, to pursue nuclear weaponry.

[Juan.Camaney]

If you take the time to compare policies between the US and Iran, we aren't as different as we'd like.

They kidnap people and torture them, we had Gitmo. They use religion to preach hate, we use patriotism. They keep their women down by treating them like inferior objects, we teach women that being pretty and having the latest fashion is better than being smart.

Either way, not many any of us can do.

Yo, Art, you got the name of that documentary? I'd love to see that. Also, lets get together for some damned beers soon so I you can tell me more about your time in Iran. Can't believe that's never come up before!

[BackdoorJesus]

I believe it was "Rick Steves' Iran" and it was on KOCE (PBS) this past weekend. Dudeman seemed seriously light in the loafers but the documentary was good & brought back a lot of cool memories.


Bro I would love to get together with you for some brewskis sometime soon and you can check out the Volcano too :toke: ... we should prolly hook it up at Beth's place though since there are no uptight adults & sub-18-year-olds there...I'm sure she'd be up for it some Friday night soon.

[Krasch]

If you take the time to compare policies between the US and Iran, we aren't as different as we'd like.

They kidnap people and torture them, we had Gitmo. They use religion to preach hate, we use patriotism. They keep their women down by treating them like inferior objects, we teach women that being pretty and having the latest fashion is better than being smart.

Either way, not many any of us can do.

Yo, Art, you got the name of that documentary? I'd love to see that. Also, lets get together for some damned beers soon so I you can tell me more about your time in Iran. Can't believe that's never come up before!
Yet at the same time our treatment of women is actually somewhat empowering, unlike Iran's methodology.

Our methods have enabled our women to assume the position that a guy will have a hard time getting far with her unless he's got the right car, right job, right looks, and right amount of cash so as to provide her with a lifestyle that facilitates her looking pretty and chasing the latest fashions. Far from being kept down, in many ways they are really in charge now.

[CD]

Good points recently...

Just to clarify, I'm for Iran having nuclear power, but strongly opposed to Iran having nuclear weapons. But technically, I'm pretty much opposed to anyone having nuclear weapons.

It seems though, that since there is a ton of different cultures in the world, until we can either learn to be a little more tolerant, I don't see these major issues being solved. Tolerant as in the middle east not considering women as inferior, to white people not thinking all Mexicans live in groups of 70 and cut lawns or work in asian restaurants.

[dan18apple]

Israel as was established in a post-colonial world and when the Western Imperial powers, a time when Europe or the United States were still dominant so could impose a decision by the United Nations Security council. The majority of the original security council now have no real power, except the United States and China. The result any deal to create Israel because it was imposed by foreign imposition is not worth the ink it was written in. No one will honour it. the bizarre obsession to prevent a nuclear Iran isn't going to change anything. Bringing up the subject of treatment of women or religion or if there is hatred poster such as "Death to Israel" is not going to prevent a nuclear Iran. The truth although very harsh is that outside the West no one really gives a crap about opinion of westerners. The fact that people in the west think their opinions can be imposed on countries like Iran, illustrate westerners are truly living in a bubble. It's funny the Iranians think the western treatment of women is terrible, allowing sentences like 5 years in prison for rape is incredibly medieval, which is not uncommon in the United States or Britain. Everybody thinks their civilisation treats women better than others.

Raising all these social perceptions on Iran's present regime is not going to prevent a nuclear Iran. Iran has too long a history of intellectuals involved in various disciplines of knowledge and will be able to develop it's military nuclear or missile technology. The Israeli's can wet their pants as much as they like it ain't going change Iran reaching its full military capability.

The United States has never historical honoured any nuclear proliferation treaty so why should any country do so, such as Iran. The United States was very cleaver slowly eliminating some large bulk nuclear missiles and replacing them with slim more smaller but more numerous nuclear missiles able to do the same job. Everybody in in the West thinks when this happen no one spotted it, but everybody did, more importantly the Iranian did notice this.

[Juan.Camaney]

Yet at the same time our treatment of women is actually somewhat empowering, unlike Iran's methodology.

Our methods have enabled our women to assume the position that a guy will have a hard time getting far with her unless he's got the right car, right job, right looks, and right amount of cash so as to provide her with a lifestyle that facilitates her looking pretty and chasing the latest fashions. Far from being kept down, in many ways they are really in charge now.

I agree to a certain extent. But having women be more than the majority in the population and not having had any women presidents says a lot. There are still many things we do to keep women down and the absence of women in the science and math fields is still very apparent.

Back to Iran though.

[Krasch]

I agree to a certain extent. But having women be more than the majority in the population and not having had any women presidents says a lot. There are still many things we do to keep women down and the absence of women in the science and math fields is still very apparent.

Back to Iran though.

C'mon now Juan you guys ALMOST had a woman as President just last year. The lack of a woman president in the US is likely due more to the characteristics, likability, and attributes of the potential candidates that have put themselves out there than a prejudice against having a woman as President.

But I agree, back to Iran.

[BackdoorJesus]

..The truth although very harsh is that outside the West no one really gives a crap about opinion of westerners. The fact that people in the west think their opinions can be imposed on countries like Iran, illustrate westerners are truly living in a bubble. It's funny the Iranians think the western treatment of women is terrible, allowing sentences like 5 years in prison for rape is incredibly medieval, which is not uncommon in the United States or Britain. Everybody thinks their civilisation treats women better than others.

...

The United States has never historical honoured any nuclear proliferation treaty so why should any country do so, such as Iran. The United States was very cleaver slowly eliminating some large bulk nuclear missiles and replacing them with slim more smaller but more numerous nuclear missiles able to do the same job. Everybody in in the West thinks when this happen no one spotted it, but everybody did, more importantly the Iranian did notice this.
There you go again trying to demonize the United States rather than assess whether or not Iran would be responsible with nuclear weapons.

The League of Arab States is also publicly opposed to an Iran with nuclear weaponry - they weren't "westerners" last time I checked.

The international community at large is opposed to a nuclear Iran and for good reasons...that have been listed up & down this thread.

When I was a kid in Tehran they told us the horror stories about the Iranian prisons; how if you ever got put into one you probably wouldn't get out for a long time, if ever. The term "medieval" was often used, so it's funny you should use that same terminology, inasmuch as I can't think of too many things in today's world more akin to the medieval times than an Iranian prison.

Now, when I was kid, that was 1976.

Fast forward to 2009.
Iran Frees American Reporter Jailed for Espionage
By Nazila Fathiand Mark Landler
May 12, 2009
TEHRAN, Iran

An Iranian-American journalist sentenced to eight years in prison on charges of spying for the United States was released Monday, a legal turnabout that removes an obstacle to President Barack Obama’s opening to Iran but illustrates the volatility of the Iranian government.

I post that so as to not to be accused of "overlooking recent history" or anything...

So yeah, the Iranians are much more progressive now. Not self-serving at all. The kind of people I want with a nuke. They can be trusted, I'm sure.

And please don't start spewing the anti-Israeli venom about how they don't have a right to exist or be recognized, because in doing this, you only tip your hand as being yet another racially and religiously biased anti-semite.

Much like general populace of Iran.

Which brings us back to the biggest glaring reason why they shouldn't have nuclear capabilities in the first place.

[licupssy]

C'mon now Juan you guys ALMOST had a woman as President just last year. The lack of a woman president in the US is likely due more to the characteristics, likability, and attributes of the potential candidates that have put themselves out there than a prejudice against having a woman as President.

But I agree, back to Iran.

True, if Hilliary had Palin's looks and personality, she would have had a better chance of beating out Obama.

Back to Iran.

As far as Iran goes if they want to have nuclear weapons then they should drop out of the NPT. It's that simple.

Israel's been around for a long time, the land has been populated by people of the Jewish religion since 11 century BCE. Muslims have only been there since the 7th century CE and the Islamic Conquests.

The main concern with Israel is they are not a member of the NPT. With their unconfirmed status of having 80 strategic Missiles, a push come to shove incident with Iran could lead to Israel striking first.

[dan18apple]

This issue of Iran and Nuclear weapons really needs sensible dialogue over time. All this pointing of figures as to who is the bad guy isn't going get any arms reduction in nuclear arms. The main country pushing for Iran to not have nuclear arms is the United States, and they are one's with most nuclear weapons in the world.

Iran is not going to take the United States intentions seriously while the US Military is next door in Iraq and Afghanistan.I think it is unrealistic for the United States to eliminate all it's nuclear weapons, but is it necessary for them to have the capability to destroy of forms of life on earth atleast 6 times over, that's over kill.

China has a sufficient number of nuclear weapons to perform their task requirements, i am not aware of any overkill in stock piling nuclear weapon like the United States.Do we really need another cold war arms race because of the United States.

[BackdoorJesus]

Again, the thread is not about the US's or China's nuclear arsenals, it is about allowing a country like Iran to have one at all. I should not have to keep repeating this.

Now, back to the topic - the USA has far more influence with the international community than does Iran, therefore the international community will follow the USA's lead and not Iran's. That's just the way it is in the modern world; Iran hasn't really been a force to be reckoned with for at least a couple millennia.

As far as "sensible dialog over time" goes, well, as our President has said recently, "We're not going to talk forever about Iran and nuclear weapons". We aren't - they have had PLENTY of time.

Iran has until the end of June or July, I believe, to shit or get off the pot as it were.

Knowing the Iranians, they will attempt to delay that deadline for a while, but that won't get much traction - the world (yes, led by the USA) is running out of patience with contrarian Iran.

So bottom line, they comply with the NPT that they signed on to, or they don't. One way they are welcomed into the international community, the other way they are shunned & possibly (likely) attacked by it.

What will they choose?

My bet is they don't comply - that seems to be the attitude from them thus far at least.

Me, I don't think they are going to get their bomb soon enough to back up their hard-line stance, and if they don't suck it up and start playing nicely with others they will find themselves in a country at a technological level equivalent to that which they knew when Persepolis was in its heyday.

[fmb]

I'm glad to see serious debate (both pro and con) over this subject. Hell, even the off-topic discussions have been enlightening. I'm using some of these posts and other comments to generate future threads. Y'all are providing lots of opportunity!

Here's fmb's personal take on Iran:

First, the US isn't the only country concerned with Iran securing a nuclear weapon or crude nuclear device. Here are a few others "concerned" about this process:

* Iraq (Sunni sect and Kurds): very concerned about the Shia dominant Iranian influence in the southern portions of Iraq and Irans deep intrusion into the Iraqi government.

* Saudi Arabia offered a tremendous amount of support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war waged during the 1980's. Historically (and currently), the Saudi's have had a tremendous fear of the Iranians. The Saudi's are of the Sunni Islamic sect.

* Egypt has tremendous issues with the Iranians, mostly because of the Iranian support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was outlawed by the Egyptian government a few decades ago. BTW, the Muslim Brotherhood is a Shia organization.

* Syria is against the Iranians for a different reason. Seventy percent (70%) of the Syrian population could be described as "Palistinian". Iran's active support of Hamas and Hezbollah (arabic "hizballah"; english translation, "god's army). A Palistinian state could lead to the fall of the Syrian government if the majority of the population pushed for revolution.

* Lebanon doesn't want to see any strengthening of the Iranian government. Iranian support of hizballah has cost the Lebanese people greatly during Israeli-hizballah battles.

The US is the country in front of the camera pushing for the Iranians to stop pursuing nuclear weapons and/or the development of nuclear weapons.

To me the situation is actually very simple:
Iran isn't building or planning on building nuclear weapons; they are enriching uranium for power purposes.

Let's all repeat that "Iran isn't building nuclear weapons."

Technically, it takes a level of refinement far in excess of their capabilities to produce uranium for any kind of weapon, something like 3% purity for power purposes versus 90+% for a bomb. How do we know this? Because all materials that could be used for enrichment are monitored, controlled, and subject to international inspection prior to entering the country.
These statements are completely unsupported and border on idiotic. The government of Iran, both the elected and theological branches, have repeatedly stated the Iranians desire weapons, are pursuing the development of weapons, and have the technology to produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran not only has the capabilities to enrich uranium, Iran is in the process of doing this. Iran has nearly 4,000 centrifuges operating 24 hours per day, enriching uranium (actually, it's seperating the lighter, desirable isotope, U235, from the unwanted, heavier isotope U238). Many scientific organizations (outside the IAEA) agree with this statement. A simple search for news articles would have shown you the Iranian president gave a tour of the uranium enrichment centrifuges to the world press. Matter of fact, Ahmadenijad used the tour and media event as an opportunity to showcase an Iranian designed and produced, advanced, more efficient centrifuge.

Umm... based on my above statement, if all the required materials were "monitored, controlled, and subject to international inspection", how was it possible for the Iranians to acquire and operate this technology??
China has a sufficient number of nuclear weapons to perform their task requirements, i am not aware of any overkill in stock piling nuclear weapon like the United States.Do we really need another cold war arms race because of the United States.
Review the Chinese government’s press releases concerning their budget. Over the last five years, the Chinese have doubled their number of nuclear weapons, increased the effectiveness of their nuclear capable missiles, and just opened a very advanced base for their nuclear powered and nuclear weapons carrying submarines.

[dan18apple]

Critically Iran couldn't careless amount the opinions of either their friends or enemies. The Iranians have always been a particularly selfish bunch by nature. No amount of pressure is going to change their minds about making nuclear weapons. I don't trust the Iranians any more than i trust the Americans to do the right thing, or to honour an agreement be signed.

i would forget the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, it's worthless toilet paper, no one is ever going to honour it, and the United States the largest stock piler of Nuclear weapons has never honoured it.

A war is a terrible thing, A nuclear war is disasterous. once a nuclear weapon is deployed it sets a precedent, the chain of events will be terrible who will stop it usuage then, if a country has it back against the wall, of course they are going to use it. Missile technology is becoming more advanced providing the capability to launch great distances and using computer target systems to hit target accurately is becoming more available at an affordable and less costly amount than before.The technology is infact getting cheaper the more time pasts.

It would a truly naive soul to think that such technology and expertise is monopolised by the NATO countrries or the United States.

Again, the thread is not about the US's or China's nuclear arsenals, it is about allowing a country like Iran to have one at all. I should not have to keep repeating this.

Now, back to the topic - the USA has far more influence with the international community than does Iran, therefore the international community will follow the USA's lead and not Iran's. That's just the way it is in the modern world; Iran hasn't really been a force to be reckoned with for at least a couple millennia.

As far as "sensible dialog over time" goes, well, as our President has said recently, "We're not going to talk forever about Iran and nuclear weapons". We aren't - they have had PLENTY of time.

Iran has until the end of June or July, I believe, to shit or get off the pot as it were.

Knowing the Iranians, they will attempt to delay that deadline for a while, but that won't get much traction - the world (yes, led by the USA) is running out of patience with contrarian Iran.

So bottom line, they comply with the NPT that they signed on to, or they don't. One way they are welcomed into the international community, the other way they are shunned & possibly (likely) attacked by it.

What will they choose?

My bet is they don't comply - that seems to be the attitude from them thus far at least.

Me, I don't think they are going to get their bomb soon enough to back up their hard-line stance, and if they don't suck it up and start playing nicely with others they will find themselves in a country at a technological level equivalent to that which they knew when Persepolis was in its heyday.

[mainstay]

Yes, but besides our Nuclear Arsenal we've got another big advantage up our sleeve that no one else has. It's like someone fighting with one fist & we have 2. Ok..let's all say it together...Ballistic Missile Defense System!!!! Even if we don't put tracking radars in Poland & the missiles in the Czech Republic, we have Destroyers in the Northern Atlantic that can shoot down any missile coming our way. Sooo, unless they have 50-100 missiles that they can launch at one time. it's a one way street. Even if Iran was soooo stupid to launch a few missiles at the USA, we could destory them, then retaliate IF WE WANTED TO. This is the 1st time since Nuclear weapons that this could be done. So, any advantage a 2nd world nation would think they might have by striking the USA 1st is gone.

The USA has always acted with great deal of caution when it comes to Nuclear Weapons. In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur begged for the use of limited nuclear weapons against an opponent that didn't have any. (N.Korea & China) In the French war in Indochina, France asked for nuclear weapons & was turned down. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR only had about a dozen missiles that could reach the USA. We had over a hundred of ICBM's that could reach them. That's why they wanted to secretly put missiles in Cuba, most of their missiles were medium range of about 1,800 miles at max.

Now, what if the situation was in reverse. What IF North Korea or Iran had all the missiles plus our Ballistic Missile Shield. Does anyone think they wouldn't take advantage of other countries or maybe even use them!!! I rest my case.

[dan18apple]

Yes, but besides our Nuclear Arsenal we've got another big advantage up our sleeve that no one else has. It's like someone fighting with one fist & we have 2. Ok..let's all say it together...Ballistic Missile Defense System!!!! Even if we don't put tracking radars in Poland & the missiles in the Czech Republic, we have Destroyers in the Northern Atlantic that can shoot down any missile coming our way. Sooo, unless they have 50-100 missiles that they can launch at one time. it's a one way street. Even if Iran was soooo stupid to launch a few missiles at the USA, we could destory them, then retaliate IF WE WANTED TO. This is the 1st time since Nuclear weapons that this could be done. So, any advantage a 2nd world nation would think they might have by striking the USA 1st is gone.

The USA has always acted with great deal of caution when it comes to Nuclear Weapons. In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur begged for the use of limited nuclear weapons against an opponent that didn't have any. (N.Korea & China) In the French war in Indochina, France asked for nuclear weapons & was turned down. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR only had about a dozen missiles that could reach the USA. We had over a hundred of ICBM's that could reach them. That's why they wanted to secretly put missiles in Cuba, most of their missiles were medium range of about 1,800 miles at max.

Now, what if the situation was in reverse. What IF North Korea or Iran had all the missiles plus our Ballistic Missile Shield. Does anyone think they wouldn't take advantage of other countries or maybe even use them!!! I rest my case.

When i read stuff like this above, i think some people been smoking too much marijuana. All those cold war missile technologies are kinda out of date, not that any one would admit it given how expensive they were to develop in the first place. The present Ballistic Missile Defense System is already outdated and essentially symbolic rather something of practical military use. Right now there is huge program to rapidly update the missile technology and naval capability, because unfortunatley things like aircraft carriers although costing atleast 100 million dollars, used for gun boat diplomacy(harrassment) among other things, can be reduced to a piece of useless junk in 10 minutes.The present destroyers are already scheduled to be phase out, even with their refitting to keep them current. The US Navy has already acknowledged there is only so far you can keep using an aging fleet of vessels that are 30 to 50 to 60 years old in operation, .

the Ballistic Missile Defense System reminds me of the french and belgian defence at the time of the second world war. They were planning according to previous demands of the first world war, not updating and staying properly current with the trends and real demands that were military useful.

[BackdoorJesus]

are we done with this topic now? because you folks can't seem to stick to it.

start a new thread about missile defense

start a new thread about the US's imperialist policies in the Middle East & elsewhere

start a new thread about nuclear proliferation & the arsenals of the US & China

Tangential conversations are fine in a debate if they lead back to the topic at hand, but these are different topics entirely.

please stay mindful of this or I will have to close this thread.

[mainstay]

are we done with this topic now? because you folks can't seem to stick to it.

start a new thread about missile defense

start a new thread about the US's imperialist policies in the Middle East & elsewhere

start a new thread about nuclear proliferation & the arsenals of the US & China

Tangential conversations are fine in a debate if they lead back to the topic at hand, but these are different topics entirely.

please stay mindful of this or I will have to close this thread.

OK, let me make this plain & simple. IRAN WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE USA, THE U.N, E.U, & MOST OF THE WORLD!!!!


-

[Juan.Camaney]

yup, this one's dead