NationStates Jolt Archive

I say Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium for power plants, even if they do scrape some aside for Bombs. They'll never make enough to do much and even if they do make Bombs, there is something called mutually assured destruction. They're not going to use it against Israel because they think Israel has Bombs and they know the US would destroy them if they did. They just want to stop being bullied around by a bunch of hypocritical countries...or they really just honestly want nuclear power plants.

L'chaim!

*they should always mean Iran(if you get confused)

Discuss. Flame. Troll...well don't do that latter two.

I say Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium for power plants, even if they do scrape some aside for Bombs. They'll never make enough to do much and even if they do make Bombs, there is something called mutually assured destruction. They're not going to use it against Israel because they think Israel has Bombs and they know the US would destroy them if they did. They just want to stop being bullied around by a bunch of hypocritical countries...or they really just honestly want nuclear power plants.

L'chaim!

*they should always mean Iran(if you get confused)

Discuss. Flame. Troll...well don't do that latter two.
Who says we're worried about Iran using the nukes? Iran is the kind of country that would let Bin Laden and Co have a nuke and that's where the trouble would begin.

Who says we're worried about Iran using the nukes? Iran is the kind of country that would let Bin Laden and Co have a nuke and that's where the trouble would begin.
I never thought of that...thanks. That might change my whole idea...

Well they could, but it doesn't mean they will. Al Qaeda is an exception to MAD...you can't really destroy a terrorist organization...hmmm, I'll have to think abou this now.

No, Ahmadineyad can't risk to give a bomb to Al Qaeda, and even less these times... what about if CIA, Mossad, or MI5 uncover it?

1. Do you really think he cares about the risk?
2. The intelligence agencies may find out, they may not
3. If he doesn't give them a bomb, they can take it. Security with nuclear weapons is bad enough in the west.

I would say let Russia produce the uranium for them, just to settle it once and for all. Sure, it seems unfair and/or hypocritical to single out Iran for trying to get nukes but at least Iran gets its uranium for power production and the situation can be settled without the UN getting involved. After all, the more nuclear power used, the less fossil fuels consumed which lowers prices and reduces pollution.

I would say let Russia produce the uranium for them, just to settle it once and for all. Sure, it seems unfair and/or hypocritical to single out Iran for trying to get nukes but at least Iran gets its uranium for power production and the situation can be settled without the UN getting involved. After all, the more nuclear power used, the less fossil fuels consumed which lowers prices and reduces pollution.
YAY RUSSIA! This would also be acceptable and I can't understand why they aren't happy with the Russian proposal.

I would say let Russia produce the uranium for them, just to settle it once and for all. Sure, it seems unfair and/or hypocritical to single out Iran for trying to get nukes but at least Iran gets its uranium for power production and the situation can be settled without the UN getting involved. After all, the more nuclear power used, the less fossil fuels consumed which lowers prices and reduces pollution.
That seems like a reasonable solution, but would Iran be willing to accept?

YAY RUSSIA! This would also be acceptable and I can't understand why they aren't happy with the Russian proposal.

1. It would mean relying on a decadent-western country (yes I know Russia is to the east of Iran but you know what I mean).
2. It would allow Russia to hold them to ransom economically, much as they tried to do to the Ukraine.

1. It would mean relying on a decadent-western country (yes I know Russia is to the east of Iran but you know what I mean).
2. It would allow Russia to hold them to ransom economically, much as they tried to do to the Ukraine.
Russian-hater. :( lol Russia is a great country that should have more influence on the world. *dreams of Onion Domes popping up everywhere*

*dreams of Onion Domes popping up everywhere*
Like onion domes requrie Russians to build them. :rolleyes:

2. It would allow Russia to hold them to ransom economically, much as they tried to do to the Ukraine.

That's true, but really there is little else they can do. Iran should accept it and prove to the world that they are capable of committing to the peaceful use of nuclear technology, and eventually they should be allowed to produce it in house rather than import it. It's a workable compromise, and the only real option for Iran.

Let them enrich Uranium, but donate the rest to sensible countries, like Europe, Sweden, The Netherlands, Denmark, Russia, Japan, North and South Korea, and Cuba.

The USA has enoug bombs already. Tha's why I lft them out. Plus look at the government, can you really call that sensible?

That's true, but really there is little else they can do. Iran should accept it and prove to the world that they are capable of committing to the peaceful use of nuclear technology, and eventually they should be allowed to produce it in house rather than import it. It's a workable compromise, and the only real option for Iran.

Meh. I never said they were particularly good reasons, just that I think they are the reasons.

*dreams of Onion Domes popping up everywhere*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39920000/jpg/_39920516_sven300x245.jpg

Thats a balding dome. Not an onion dome.

Meh. I never said they were particularly good reasons, just that I think they are the reasons.

That is one major reason; however, in reality it's the only path that the various sides of the issue can come to any kind of agreement on.

there is something called mutually assured destruction.

nope. MAD only applies to situations in which all parties are rational and would prefer to avoid destruction. that does not describe iran.

Jag äter inte mina vänner.
"I'm not eating, my friends."
OR
"I don't eat my friends."

nope. MAD only applies to situations in which all parties are rational and would prefer to avoid destruction. that does not describe iran.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. What suicidal tendencies have you seen emanating from Iran?

nope. MAD only applies to situations in which all parties are rational and would prefer to avoid destruction. that does not describe iran.
Iran: No. North Korea: Possibly. Iran is a far more stable country than NK, which would fall into disarray if no one can succeed Kim Jong-Il.

While I am not at all for Iran getting the bomb, I think that the assumption it would give it to Al Quaida is irrational - a Wahhabi organization would use it on Teheran as it would in New York or LA.