NationStates Jolt Archive

The US, Europe, and the IAEA are closing in on an agreement that set an October 31 deadline for Iran to disclose all information about its nuclear program and to hand over all nuclear related materials or face "international actions".
Sources say that such actions will involve international economic sanctions and trade embargoes against Iran.
US officials have not ruled out the military option at this time. However, it is one of the options being discussed.
The discussions come in light of new sattelite photos of an Iranian military base that nuclear experts say has buildings and structures indicative that Iran is trying to produce an atom bomb.
Iran has refused all IAEA requests to have international monitors inspect the facilities and while it has agreed to suspend the processing uranium, Iran continues to manufacture centrifuges for use nuclear reactors.

what's your point? The IAEA is a lame institution anyway. If I was an Iranian I would ignore them too.

I've always wondered why it's so horrible if Iran has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has, Israel has, India has, France, U.S, China, Russian, who knows who else. How can we tell that it's ok for me to have thousands of them but you can't have any?
They should be banned from all.

It's all very well for us to talk about "international actions," but honestly, what capability do we have to interfere? Economic sanctions? Iraq proved that as long as you've got oil, companies will find a way to do business with you, even if it's against the law (Halliburton, for example). Military action? We're already stretched as it is, and we'd shit ourselves if one of the other major powers led an invasion. And we really don't want to have to cover Israel's ass if they throw a preemptive airstrike at Iran. We really will have the war of Islam versus the West if that happens.

So what can we do?

I've always wondered why it's so horrible if Iran has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has, Israel has, India has, France, U.S, China, Russian, who knows who else. How can we tell that it's ok for me to have thousands of them but you can't have any?
They should be banned from all.
because iran are "bad guys" and israel and pakistan are some how "good guys"

Countries purchase nuclear weaponry because they feel threatened. Telling Iran that if you don't stop what ever you're doing, we will bomb your country, isn't very comforting. If someone threatens to attack surely I would try to defend myself.

because iran are "bad guys" and israel and pakistan are some how "good guys"
They're good guys only because they already have the weaponry. Anyone trying to make it (and thus make themselves serious threats to the over-lording USA), is a bad guy.

In IAEA's defense, Iran did sign the non-proliferation treaty that ban the development of nuclear weapons. It is up to the IAEA to enforce the treaty.

In Iran's defense, I would feel threathened too if I was in their place and the bomb is a good deterrent against invasion.

To further muddy the situation, I believe Iran is claiming that the instalation is for a nuclear power-plant to generate electricity. The IAEA does not believe it.

I've always wondered why it's so horrible if Iran has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has, Israel has, India has, France, U.S, China, Russian, who knows who else. How can we tell that it's ok for me to have thousands of them but you can't have any?
They should be banned from all.
Some nations can be trusted with nuclear weapons, some cannot. Iran's government has a long history as a state sponsor of terrorism, and is somewhat unstable. That adds up to nukes falling into the hands of terrorists.

Some thermobaric bombs dropped on key locations might solve this problem nicely.

what's your point? The IAEA is a lame institution anyway. If I was an Iranian I would ignore them too.

If I was Iran, I'd be building nukes as fast as I could. It may be the only way to protect themselves from an American invasion. However to their credit, Iran is not Iraq, Iran CAN defend it's self already. The Americans think they're having trouble in Iraq, lets see them try to walk into Iran in 3 weeks, good luck!

Some thermobaric bombs dropped on key locations might solve this problem nicely.
Iran? Or the US?

If I was Iran, I'd be building nukes as fast as I could. It may be the only way to protect themselves from an American invasion. However to their credit, Iran is not Iraq, Iran CAN defend it's self already. The Americans think they're having trouble in Iraq, lets see them try to walk into Iran in 3 weeks, good luck!
The US military could destroy Iran in short order. Just can't occupy it. Our military was designed to fight advanced opponents and larger numbers. If you think Iran having nukes is a good thing, you are an idiot. Iran sponsors terrorism, and iran is unstable.

Iran? Or the US?
On Iran's nuclear facilities.

The US military could destroy Iran in short order. Just can't occupy it. Our military was designed to fight advanced opponents and larger numbers. If you think Iran having nukes is a good thing, you are an idiot. Iran sponsors terrorism, and iran is unstable.

Iran actually has a quite capable air force. Certainly not as good as the US, but still. Don't forget the two countries America has attacked thus far really had no way of defending themselves nor did either country have an air force. Also there are many factors in play with Iran, for example Russia.. I'll leave it at that. I don't believe the US wants to start a war with Iran any more then they want to start a war with N. Korea.

The US military could destroy Iran in short order. Just can't occupy it. Our military was designed to fight advanced opponents and larger numbers. If you think Iran having nukes is a good thing, you are an idiot. Iran sponsors terrorism, and iran is unstable.
The US sponsors terrorism. It may become unstable. This isn't as simple as you would like to make it out to be.

you are an idiot.

THAT was uncalled for.

Iran actually has a quite capable air force. Certainly not as good as the US, but still. Don't forget the two countries America has attacked thus far really had no way of defending themselves nor did either country have an air force. Also there are many factors in play with Iran, for example Russia.. I'll leave it at that. I don't believe the US wants to start a war with Iran any more then they want to start a war with N. Korea.
A capable airforce is nice, but the USA has arguably the best airforce in the world. Stealth planes to boot. Airstrikes on nuclear facilities in Iran wouldn't precipitate a nuclear response from Russia.

THAT was uncalled for.
I appologize.

The US sponsors terrorism. It may become unstable. This isn't as simple as you would like to make it out to be.
The US isn't in the same league with Iran when it comes to sponsoring terrorism. We are way more stable as well. The odds of a US nuke getting in the hands of terrorists is nil.

A capable airforce is nice, but the USA has arguably the best airforce in the world. Stealth planes to boot. Airstrikes on nuclear facilities in Iran wouldn't precipitate a nuclear response from Russia.

Agreed, there will be no nuclear response by any one. That's not what I'm talking about.

Some thing to keep in mind though.. If/when Iran does have nukes, they won't be keeping them at the plant..lol They will be well hidden. Russia and America will be at complete opposing sides on this war, we aren't talking just France here.

As to the air force, Germany had the best air force in the world in WWII, that didn't stop them from in the end losing.

Some nations can be trusted with nuclear weapons, some cannot. Iran's government has a long history as a state sponsor of terrorism, and is somewhat unstable. That adds up to nukes falling into the hands of terrorists.
US is the only nation ever used a nuclear bomb, you remember? Most of unpure uranium and small nuclear weapons "falling into the hands of terrorists" are from Russia. They already got A LOT of material to use in terrosrist actions.
Iran is unstable yes, but what about Israel or Pakistan? In Iranians point of view US is the unstable and threatening nation.

Terrorists don't need nukes. Remember the two plane crashed in Russia two weeks ago? Well the woman who blew the other plane get through security by paying 30€ for the guards. The war on terrorism won't work until nations can get rid of corruption.
Terrorists had passed tens of security guards on their way to Beslan and noone stopped them or even reported about them. Poverty makes terrorism possible. Start a war against poverty and you may see some improvements.

Terrorists don't need nukes. Remember the two plane crashed in Russia two weeks ago? Well the woman who blew the other plane get through security by paying 30€ for the guards. The war on terrorism won't work until nations can get rid of corruption.
Terrorists had passed tens of security guards on their way to Beslan and noone stopped them or even reported about them. Poverty makes terrorism possible. Start a war against poverty and you may see some improvements.



Bravo, good post, Helioterra, especially the last sentence. And not the milktoast "War on Poverty" that America is waging now, because it's not working. We need to tear down all the programs and start over, we need to cut tax loopholes for the rich and the corporations, we need to get the best minds together to solve this problem, and we need to STOP BEING SO DAMNED APATHETIC, like us Americans have been for most of the modern age...

Bravo, good post, Helioterra, especially the last sentence. And not the milktoast "War on Poverty" that America is waging now, because it's not working. We need to tear down all the programs and start over, we need to cut tax loopholes for the rich and the corporations, we need to get the best minds together to solve this problem, and we need to STOP BEING SO DAMNED APATHETIC, like us Americans have been for most of the modern age...

Eh, whatever.

Actually, Iran is very stable compared to the rest of the middle east.