Iran and the Bomb

[angellous_evangellous]

I question your assumptions behind that question.
1) I don't believe that Iran is any more "mad" than some of the other nuclear powers (eg, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea).
2) I am not "placing a bomb" in anyone's hands. Iran is doing this (presumably) without my help.
3) I don't want to see the spread of nuclear weapons.
4) I don't trust my own country to decide who gets to go nuclear & who must be attacked in order to prevent their going nuclear.

My central point was that Iran's reasons for going nuclear are no worse than anyone else's. I'll add that if the US & Israel are ready to attack Iran in order to stop them, that this will be foolish. Leaders have little imagination regarding how their plans will go catastrophically awry. I favor more honest diplomacy & less foreign adventurism. After all, our problems with Iran stem largely from our interference in their gov't & our support of Zionism.

1) Really? How many times has Israel had a dictator who said that they don't recognize Iran as a state, and want it wiped off the map? I'll agree that Pakistan and North Korea are just as nuts as Iran, but that supports my point and not yours... it's when we place the USA, Britian, and other sane democratic nuclear powers on the same level as dictatorships.

2) I didn't say that you were giving anyone the bomb. BUT it's no secret that Iran is getting help from someone.

3) OK.

4) Well, you have good reason for your mistrust. Bush lied to the American people about WMD's in Iraq.

I too think that it would be stupid for the USA or Israel to attack Iran for any reason. However, I do think that the USA should bend over backwards to prevent nuclear proliferation - which has been more successful in Iran than North Korea, precisely because its leadership doesn't care at all for the well-being of their people.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) Really? How many times has Israel had a dictator who said that they don't recognize Iran as a state, and want it wiped off the map?

Your question presumes that political posturing is actual policy. Consider also that Israel has threatened to attack Iran. I see danger in both. I see reason for Iran to want the bomb. To see their reasoning is not the same as approving of it.

I'll agree that Pakistan and North Korea are just as nuts as Iran, but that supports my point and not yours...

What do you think my point is?

2) I didn't say that you were giving anyone the bomb. BUT it's no secret that Iran is getting help from someone.

So it seems. But I've no control over that, nor does the US.

4) Well, you have good reason for your mistrust. Bush lied to the American people about WMD's in Iraq.

It's not about Bush. It's about government in general.

I too think that it would be stupid for the USA or Israel to attack Iran for any reason. However, I do think that the USA should bend over backwards to prevent nuclear proliferation - which has been more successful in Iran than North Korea, precisely because its leadership doesn't care at all for the well-being of their people.

Which leadership doesn't care about their people? Why doesn't the US do anything to stop Israel from being nuclear? I see a little American religious hypocrisy here.

You strike me as rather anti-Iran, yet nonchalant about Israel's nukes. Since you're a Xtian, & particularly a devoted one (thinking of your extensive study), could it be that's why we differ so in how we see these countries? As a heathen, I have see no inherent moral superiority in Jewish countries over Islamic ones, or over Xtian ones, or vice versa. I don't buy into American & Israeli propaganda against Iran.

 

[Allah-lover]

First things first: the bomb is evil and no one should have it. The awful thing about the bomb is that the intention is to wipe out the civilian population and not the military. It also completely ruins the land.

By making the land of one's enemy a wasteland, the entire point of war is forgone. The whole point of war is killing people and taking their stuff. When a country is ready to use the Bomb, they have already expressed the willingness to give up all of their enemy's resources.

America and Russia - while threatening eachother - both had a very tight grip on who could launch nuclear weapons, how they were stored, and the rhetoric used in the Cold War from national leaders.

Being a dictatorship, Iran needs only one madman to annihilate great portions of the Middle East.

How can we guarantee people in nuclear club will be wise forever. No body knows who is going to lead those countries tommorrow. So global irridacation of nuclear weapons is a must. Mad & aggressive leaders can come anywhere.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Consider also that Israel has threatened to attack Iran.

When? I'd like to see the offensive threats that compliment what Iran has done.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You strike me as rather anti-Iran, yet nonchalant about Israel's nukes. Since you're a Xtian, & particularly a devoted one (thinking of your extensive study), could it be that's why we differ so in how we see these countries? As a heathen, I have see no inherent moral superiority in Jewish countries over Islamic ones, or over Xtian ones, or vice versa. I don't buy into American & Israeli propaganda against Iran.

haha - you strike me as non-chalant about Iran developing nukes, which wouldbre horrible for the stability of the Middle East. At best, it would mean a cold war, and at worst it would turn Palestine into the proverbial glass sea.

And no, it's not my Christianity that gives me preference for Israel. I wish that they didn't have nukes, either, and it's tragic that they would rather destroy themselves with it as a last resort in a war.

I too see no inherent moral superiority for Israel, but I think that they can at least have better control over their nuclear arsenal than Iran.

And one other point: Israel can defend itself quite competently without nuclear weapons. The first thing that they would do if attacked by a nuclear power would be destroying all of Iran's nuclear arsenal.

Dismissing Ahmadinejad's own statements as propaganda is intellectually dishonest.

note: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022203530.html

 

[gruggle10]

i dont think USA or israel will ever attack iran..they will never attack iran.
they only attack iraq,afghan, but for iran,it is impossible.

 

[Revoltingest]

haha - you strike me as non-chalant about Iran developing nukes.....

I am. It's just like Israel's nukes....I understand why they have the bomb.
I'm resigned to watching something I fear - proliferation of the most dangerous of weapons.

And no, it's not my Christianity that gives me preference for Israel. I wish that they didn't have nukes, either, and it's tragic that they would rather destroy themselves with it as a last resort in a war.

I too see no inherent moral superiority for Israel, but I think that they can at least have better control over their nuclear arsenal than Iran.

Sounds reasonable to me.

And one other point: Israel can defend itself quite competently without nuclear weapons. The first thing that they would do if attacked by a nuclear power would be destroying all of Iran's nuclear arsenal.

If the nuclear power which attacked Israel weren't Iran, for Israel to attack Iran seems illogical.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If the nuclear power which attacked Israel weren't Iran, for Israel to attack Iran seems illogical.

Think about it some more.

(when has Israel ever been attacked by one nation?)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i dont think USA or israel will ever attack iran..they will never attack iran.
they only attack iraq,afghan, but for iran,it is impossible.

I agree completely.

I think that Iran would have to attack Israel first.

 

[Revoltingest]

Think about it some more.

(when has Israel ever been attacked by one nation?)

I did. It still seems illogical....unless I imagine that a malevolently Machiavellian Israel would
provoke war with Iran so as to force America to its defense & using us for the utter destruction
of its foes. Such a scenario would challenge Israel's worthiness of our defending them.

I know many people from Iran & Israel. Based upon my knowing them, Iran strikes me as the saner
of the 2 countries, despite how they're portrayed here in our media. Still....I don't trust either.

 

[Sahar]

Further more, the net is crawling with high profile articles, some of which by strategic analysts from Arab countries about how Israel is the nuclear power which imposes security on the Sunni Muslim world of the middle east from the threat of the rising Shia crescent in Iran.

:biglaugh:Nice one!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I did. It still seems illogical....unless I imagine that a malevolently Machiavellian Israel would provoke war with Iran so as to force America to its defense & using us for the utter destruction of its foes.

Such a scenario would challenge Israel's worthiness of our defending them.

I know many people from Iran & Israel. Based upon my knowing them, Iran strikes me as the saner
of the 2 countries, despite how they're portrayed here in our media. Still....I don't trust either.

In the case of Iran, it doesn't matter how sane the people are. Ahmadinejad - a man who wants to see Israel destroyed - will be in control of the nuclear weapons.

I think that any attack on Israel would have the enthusiastic help of the Iranians.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think citzens around the world dont know that? and your solution is, what? trying to balance out the nuclear power play by letting an oppressive third world society with religious fanatics aquire the bomb?

Yes, that's what's boggling my mind right now.

 

[dogsgod]

Apparently Iran is most interested in a middle east nuclear free zone. Also, Iran is signed on with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has remained in compliance regardless of the false accusations the west makes. Saddam was telling the truth when he said he had no nuclear weapons and Iraqi citizens are paying the price for having a government that could not defend them from an invading and occupying western Imperialist army. Iran, in light of what has happened to their neighbors, would be fools not to acquire nuclear arms.

 

[Peacewise]

That there is a consideration of "shall we let them have the bomb" reveals that we remain in the mindset of aggression. It is not for us to decide what another nation does or doesn't do, it is for them to decide.

That very aggressive stance of "we let them" is the very reason why they want the bomb, because they feel that without the bomb they cannot make their own decisions due to the threat of the superior and aggressive forces of the West and in particular Usa.

Just speaking out loud here. Perhaps the proliferation of nuclear weapons would be worthwhile, it enforces a hesitation for open conflict between nuclear powers, perhaps that stability is what is required for a peaceful world currently.

 

[kai]

Apparently Iran is most interested in a middle east nuclear free zone. Also, Iran is signed on with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has remained in compliance regardless of the false accusations the west makes. Saddam was telling the truth when he said he had no nuclear weapons and Iraqi citizens are paying the price for having a government that could not defend them from an invading and occupying western Imperialist army. Iran, in light of what has happened to their neighbors, would be fools not to acquire nuclear arms.

Saddam wasnt always telling the truth when it came to nuclear weapons:

Up to the late 1980s it was generally assumed that any undeclared nuclear activities would have to be based on the diversion of nuclear material from safeguards. States acknowledged the possibility of nuclear activities entirely separate from those covered by safeguards, but it was assumed they would be detected by national intelligence activities. There was no particular effort by IAEA to attempt to detect them.
Iraq had been making efforts to secure a nuclear potential since the 1960s. In the late 1970s a specialised plant, Osiraq, was constructed near Baghdad. The plant was attacked during the Iran–Iraq War and was destroyed by Israeli bombers in June 1981.
Not until the 1990 NPT Review Conference did some states raise the possibility of making more use of (for example) provisions for "special inspections" in existing NPT Safeguards Agreements. Special inspections can be undertaken at locations other than those where safeguards routinely apply, if there is reason to believe there may be undeclared material or activities.
After inspections in Iraq following the UN Gulf War cease-fire resolution showed the extent of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program, it became clear that the IAEA would have to broaden the scope of its activities. Iraq was an NPT Party, and had thus agreed to place all its nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. But the inspections revealed that it had been pursuing an extensive clandestine uranium enrichment programme, as well as a nuclear weapons design programme.
The main thrust of Iraq's uranium enrichment program was the development of technology for electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) of indigenous uranium. This uses the same principles as a mass spectrometer (albeit on a much larger scale). Ions of uranium-238 and uranium-235 are separated because they describe arcs of different radii when they move through a magnetic field. This process was used in the Manhattan Project to make the highly enriched uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb, but was abandoned soon afterwards.
The Iraqis did the basic research work at their nuclear research establishment at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad, and were building two full-scale facilities at Tarmiya and Ash Sharqat, north of Baghdad. However, when the war broke out, only a few separators had been installed at Tarmiya, and none at Ash Sharqat.
The Iraqis were also very interested in centrifuge enrichment, and had been able to acquire some components including some carbon-fibre rotors, which they were at an early stage of testing.
They were clearly in violation of their NPT and safeguards obligations, and the IAEA Board of Governors ruled to that effect. The UN Security Council then ordered the IAEA to remove, destroy or render harmless Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. This was done by mid 1998, but Iraq then ceased all cooperation with the UN, so the IAEA withdrew from this work.
The revelations from Iraq provided the impetus for a very far-reaching reconsideration of what safeguards are intended to achieve.

Nuclear proliferation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sunstone]

Is the aim of their program a nuclear weapon?

I don't think the case has been made that a weapon is the aim of their program.

When America has the Bomb why shouldn't Iran?

No one should have the bomb, Stephen, least of all a theocracy.

 

[dogsgod]

I don't think the case has been made that a weapon is the aim of their program.



No one should have the bomb, Stephen, least of all a theocracy.

Iranians are about as religious as those living in the US, which is saying something because Americans are extremely religious. Iran is technically a theocracy, and the US is technically a democracy, otherwise the lines are rather blurred.

 

[kai]

Iranians are about as religious as those living in the US, which is saying something because Americans are extremely religious. Iran is technically a theocracy, and the US is technically a democracy, otherwise the lines are rather blurred.

whats blurred about it?

Politics of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Darkness]

Breathe in and out friend. To the best of my knowledge I wasn't using a slogan - I don't think the US or Israel, Britain or France can claim moral superiority on this issue as they have nuclear arms that they intend keeping. If the US has arms why can't Iran seems a valid point to my mind.

You know me, Im as come as always.

Moral superiority?
this isnt about moral superiority, this is about superiority. period.

I disagree. It is about realpolitik and moral superiority. A theocratic, authoritarian regime has no leg to stand on in argueing for its own military rights, since it cannot even respect the human rights of its own citizenry. When you have a council of clerics who believe in a cosmic struggle between good and evil, and who believe the West - the heart of liberal democracy - is the Great Satan, they have lost all authority to demand anything.