NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's make it a clear question: Do you think the Iranian government is trying to build nuclear weapons?

If possible, back it up with some evidence. The IAEA says they have no indications that Iran is trying, but at the same time the Iranians have rejected a deal where the Russians would deliver fully usable nuclear fuel elements and even take care of the old ones, sparing Iran the expense of having to enrich uranium itself.

That, together with the sheer pointlessness of nuclear power in a country with so much oil and gas, points to me that they're trying to build a long-term insurance policy for themselves. It was probably started a while ago, but only more recently pursued with the North Korean success and Saddam's failure. The perceived unfairness of Israel and Pakistan having nukes but Iran (which sees itself as a major regional power, and probably rightly so) not having them only adds another incentive.

Note that I'm not asking whether you think they should have them or should be allowed to, though if you want to say something about that, feel free. But the topic is whether you think their enrichment program is entirely peaceful.

I'm not quite sure, having not followed the story extensively enough. It's possible, but I need more evidence. I am, however, a little inclined to be skeptical this time around, because Iraq was supposed to have (or be building) WMDs too, but I do think that declining an offer to take care of their nuclear waste for free is a little bit suspicious.

I dont know.

I do know the last time we did this, when a country was telling us "we dont have em, and we arent making them", they werent, and didnt, and we invaded anyway.
Look where that got us.

Now, were all set to do it again.

I say, this time, lets see what happens.

They say they arent, but havent allowed inspectors in yet.
That makes me a little nervous, but avoided another Iraq should be paramount if we have any sense.
The question is...do we?

Even if Iran had nuclear weapons would they use them? I mean they have to know if they nuke Israel the US will come down on them like the wrath of God. Hell if they nuke Israel ill probably enlist.

I dont know.
That's a cop-out. For the purposes of this thread, what does your gut say?

Even if Iran had nuclear weapons would they use them?
I don't think so. But that doesn't mean I want them to have them, or that I would be okay with a covert nuclear program. There's more than enough nukes on the planet already, and if there's one place that doesn't need them right now it's the Middle East.

That's a cop-out. For the purposes of this thread, what does your gut say?


I don't think so. But that doesn't mean I want them to have them, or that I would be okay with a covert nuclear program. There's more than enough nukes on the planet already, and if there's one place that doesn't need them right now it's the Middle East.

No, really, it's quite okay, even admirable, to withhold judgment until the evidence is in!

That's a cop-out. For the purposes of this thread, what does your gut say?.


Hmm...maybe I wasnt clear enough.
My gut tells me that we should lay the hell off this time, and actually take thier word for it, but keep insisting they allow U.N weapons inspectors.
I say we actually give diplomacy the chance to work that we failed to allow last time this happened.

I say we try to learn from our last mistake.

Disclaimer: War with Iran? DON'T EVEN!

I was just talking with a neighbour today; she wasn't much of a news-watcher and didn't know Bush was trying to start trouble with Iran and wondered why. I told her and said there was a very easy way to circumvent the whole issue: send some of our people over to work with them to develop a solar power grid.

With the implementation of solar, wind and geothermal energy, nuclear power would become a non-issue. Iran's not dumb, they know it's out there, and yet they still "choose" to implement and proliferate nuclear energy in preference to technologies that are cleaner, cheaper and safer and are at least as effective.

In short: bluff called.

So...given that nuclear energy is unnecessary, they're either playing a game of "Ha-ha, made ya look!" or they're using the story as a glib cover-up.

No, really, it's quite okay, even admirable, to withhold judgment until the evidence is in!
Not if I didn't put an option to the effect into the poll. Then it's downright abominable.

Anyways, we'll never have all the evidence until either the Iranian government is brought down or they test the first warhead. Waiting is not an option for all eternity. I'm just asking what you think at this stage, with the evidence available right now.

No, it's not. It would be a political suicide for them to build nukes since it would give USA a reason to attack(not that they need a reason, they will think something out). Iran has the right, as every other country, to have nuclear power. Besides, building nuclear weapons takes more than a day.
I didn't buy into the US propaganda the last time, on the contrary I was almost sure on the opposite, and I'm certainly not buying into it this time. Before those who claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons provide proof, that's something other than speculations, I will support Iran's nuclear program.

The Russians have already made offers to the Iranians. If the Iranians weren't interested in building a bomb, they would have accepted the Russian offers to give them reactors for generating power.

I think it's fairly obvious that they do have a Nuclear Weapons program. Their enrichment of Uranium far beyond what would be needed for a power generation program is just one of a myriad of facts which point to an Iranian Nuclear program.

However, I'm torn about weather it's a good idea for Iran to posses Nuclear Weapons. On one hand, I recognize that Iran is a sovereign nation. Being the anti-internationalist that I am, I recognize them having the right to do anything that does not directly adversely (double adverb epic lulz) effect any other nation. But, I am afraid of Iranian nuclear weapons getting in the hands of Militant groups. Iranian connections with Hezbollah and other extremest groups makes me fear that Iran would look the other way if one of these groups would want to "borrow" a Nuclear weapon.

In sort, I support positive diplomacy to halt the Iranian nuclear program. But I would never support aggressive military action against Iran.

Considering who else in the region has nukes, it is only reasonable to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

Considering who else in the region has nukes, it is only reasonable to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

Yes because you want every last Jew killed.

Yes because you want every last Jew killed.

And there descended the thread, never to return...

And there descended the thread, never to return...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12814204&postcount=58
Prosecution rests your honor.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12814204&postcount=58
Prosecution rests your honor.

Fair enough, I don't deny UB is an ass at the best of times. But what could have been a fairly interesting discussion about what people believe Iran is up to is in all probability going to spiral into one of those threads where 'anti semite' is thrown about a lot. Ok, it was going to do that anyway, but still.

I dotn think they have them now but i think its only time before they get them


I reckon the world should just say to Iran ... you believe in your leaders ... we want you to have nuclear energy but not the weapons ... the world is putting its faith in you that if your leaders lie and do make weapons you stand up for your country and oust the leaders and we will offer our help

Nuclear power gives so many benifits i think its wrong for Iran not to have it but give the Irainians chance to prove them selves and there belief in there government that they arent making weapons ....

If they do make weapons the Irainian people are on our side
If they dont make weapons then weve not been arses and they have more electricity etc and there country improves

Anyway, back on topic. I don't think Iran has nukes, and I don't think they've committed themselves to getting them, no matter what. They know they can never use them without getting glassed, so I think it is more a way of bugging the west, getting a bit of national prestige, and a getting a civilian nuclear program. A question I ask is: if Iran did have nukes, would they use them against invading forces?

I think Iran is building nukes.

I am less worried about what Iran will do with nuclear weapons than the potential Middle Eastern arms race that will likely develop should Iran successfully develop nuclear weapons.

Bad enough to have three nuclear powers in the region (Israel, Iran, Pakistan). What happens when Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria decide they need nukes too?

I like the idea of calling their bluff by offering to help them develop alternative energy sources, but it seems too easy...

I'm not quite sure, having not followed the story extensively enough. It's possible, but I need more evidence. I am, however, a little inclined to be skeptical this time around, because Iraq was supposed to have (or be building) WMDs too, but I do think that declining an offer to take care of their nuclear waste for free is a little bit suspicious.

There is no free lunch...

I think it's fairly obvious that they do have a Nuclear Weapons program. Their enrichment of Uranium far beyond what would be needed for a power generation program is just one of a myriad of facts which point to an Iranian Nuclear program.

I'm not calling you a liar or anything, dont get me wrong, but are we absolutely sure they have enriched any uranium to the point of being weapons-grade?

How do we know for sure?
Got a source?

Im not wild about the idea of them having nuclear wepons either, but can we be sure they have the intent?

Well it's an interesting question, but on these issues I like to go by what reliable information we already have, I do not like to go on 'hunches' or political differences between Iran and other countries, whether they have a theocracy and don't like Israel is plainly irrelevant to the topic at hand. The IAEA, the most reliable source on nuclear happenings, recently admitted that their is no evidence that Iran is creating nuclear weapons, and urged the US and others to step back from the brink, this I think is wise advice. I think those prematurely pushing for war (especially when Iran is cooperating with the IAEA) have their own political agenda which is profoundly anti-Iranians because of political differences, and as far as they are concerned the 'evidence' may as well just fall in line with their rhetoric.

So to all those people who think Iran is building nukes, what do you base this opinion on; a hunch, or because they are a theocracy? I personally base my opinion on IAEA statement of the lack of evidence. I personally think the right-wing stance of 'Iran is evil; and they are obviously building nukes because of this, the evidence may as well just conform to my view'.

I do not believe Iran is building nuclear weapons.

I believe they would like to, and I believe they would have the capacity to do so within 10-20 years.

But then that sentence could apply to about 90% of countries.

Iran poses no current nuclear threat. See you in a decade and maybe things will change. Until then, it's all fear-mongering and grandstanding.

i would prefer to see a world in which no nation had them. but as long as one nation does, every child on the planet over the age of ten has exactly the same 'right' to.

=^^=
.../\...

Does Iran have nukes? I do not think they do. if they did, they would have set one off in a test, to prove it.

Are they trying to develop them? Yes, because they are not stupid. They saw what happen to Iraq when it didn't, and N Korea that does... Having a nuclear warhead is an effective deterrent to invasion, and the Iranian government, supreme polticial survivors, know that well. If they aren't developing one, then they sure as hell should be.

As for what I feel about it. It would be hypocritical of me as a citizen of the UK to say Iran shouldn't develop nuclear warheads when my own nation posesses them, which I believe we should. It is the responcibility of the leader of a nation to protect and defend the people and land from attack. The Iranians have the same responcibility to their own. And let's be honest, they are being seriously threatened and so have every reason, and obligation to their nation, to prepare for the worst.

How should I know? It's not like I've extensively toured the place searching for nukes.

if we want that Iran stop his nuclear program, we must look deeper to these things...as a citizen of a country which has nuke and atomic army.. i wuold like that all the world throw them in the deep ocean and just forget them.. no nuke, no war... Peace and Love... unless evrey state is free to do what ever he want.
why the russian, the american and the europian have the atomic bombs????? how many wars america is doing in this moment?? arn't they the big threat of the worlds peace??

The Russians have already made offers to the Iranians. If the Iranians weren't interested in building a bomb, they would have accepted the Russian offers to give them reactors for generating power.

Energy independence and national pride. Having Russia provide reactors and fuel doesn't give either and you yourself have pointed out the problems with their oil production and income. Local politics require something to distract the populace from economic woes.

Saber rattling from the US is also an added plus.

Considering who else in the region has nukes, it is only reasonable to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

true since the military capablities of the arab militaries have declined isreal is the superpower of the area, and iran is pretty much the area's china, the underdog if you will, and are held in check by turkey now instead of iraq

Bad enough to have three nuclear powers in the region (Israel, Iran, Pakistan). What happens when Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria decide they need nukes too?
of the ones mentioned only saudi arabia can build them and keep them due to cost

No, really, it's quite okay, even admirable, to withhold judgment until the evidence is in!

Indeed.

Not if I didn't put an option to the effect into the poll. Then it's downright abominable.


Don't be silly.

You have a strange choice of words. Advocating letting people die so that someone else can buy a bigger car is perfectly ok; withholding judgement on whether or not Iran is developing nukes is "abominable". Your sense of reality is slightly skewed, methinks.

In any case: I don't know. For all Ahmadinejad's posturing, we don't know what the boys higher up in the Iranian hierarchy are thinking. On the face of it, it appears probable that they are trying to develop nukes, but I don't know, and neither do you. With the evidence at present, we can barely even make a reasonably educated guess. El Baradei is quite right.

Yes because you want every last Jew killed.

I agree and for different reasons. Want to qualify myself as being a Muslim and a speaker of Arabic. One thing I learned in my travels with the military and as a civ is that there is a deep hatred for Israel from Morocco to Iran. I ask people why but don't ever get a good enough response to justify hatred. The Arabic media which I do read often has a underlying theme which exposed long enough and with minimal education will turn you into believing the Jews are whats wrong with everything. Seeing how I was raised in the US and taught a little about history and such. I just don't see it that way. So when many people are warning that they want to wipe Israel off the map or want every Jew killed. That is what they mean.

I for one support destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and not wait any longer to do it. If the US doesn't have the balls to do it get another nations that will. You do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of these governments in the middle east. They lack the Democratic institutions that would keep the power of nuclear weapons in check.

I agree and for different reasons. Want to qualify myself as being a Muslim and a speaker of Arabic. One thing I learned in my travels with the military and as a civ is that there is a deep hatred for Israel from Morocco to Iran.
What I have learned from this forum that there is a deep hatred by many Jews and Jewish sympathizers for Muslims. And although you claim to be a Muslim, you are really an Israeli sympathizer? And we should trust you, just like you trusted Bush?

I ask people why but don't ever get a good enough response to justify hatred.
They just hate Jews for no good reason?

So when many people are warning that they want to wipe Israel off the map or want every Jew killed. That is what they mean.
How many Muslims are "wanting to wipe Isreal off the map?" How do you know they mean it?

BTW, over the years here, I have seen quite a few right wingers here talk about turning Muslim countries into "glass".

I for one support destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and not wait any longer to do it.
Then you really aren't a Muslim are you? You are just another of those right wing warmongers?

If the US doesn't have the balls to do it get another nations that will. You do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of these governments in the middle east.
Yeah, the US has already messed up Iraq....it would be better to get the blood on someone elses' hands for this one?

They lack the Democratic institutions that would keep the power of nuclear weapons in check.
And you know this how?

With the current situation in Pakistan, it wouldn't be terribly smart to attack Iran?

The IAEA, the most reliable source on nuclear happenings, recently admitted that their is no evidence that Iran is creating nuclear weapons...
Actually, they admitted that they have no evidence, not that there is none. It's not like Iran has been going out of its way to help IAEA inspections.

Don't be silly.

You have a strange choice of words. Advocating letting people die so that someone else can buy a bigger car is perfectly ok; withholding judgement on whether or not Iran is developing nukes is "abominable". Your sense of reality is slightly skewed, methinks.
Methinks thou art taking my words to literally. ;)

What I have learned from this forum that there is a deep hatred by many Jews and Jewish sympathizers for Muslims. And although you claim to be a Muslim, you are really an Israeli sympathizer? And we should trust you, just like you trusted Bush?

I don't claim to be Muslim I am Muslim. Sympathizer? No. However I am questioning people that have blind hatred. Not asking you to trust anyone.


They just hate Jews for no good reason?

In not so many words... Yes

How many Muslims are "wanting to wipe Isreal off the map?" How do you know they mean it?

From my interactions it ranges from just hating them to wanting to destroy them. It varies but more then just a small group from my discussions wouldn't mind if Israel was gone. I know it's hard to fathom that. I also have a hard time understanding this. How do I know they mean it? Well if someone says it then I believe that says a lot.

BTW, over the years here, I have seen quite a few right wingers here talk about turning Muslim countries into "glass".

That is about as idiotic as saying to wipe Israel off the map. If of course they are just blindly saying it without any justification.


Then you really aren't a Muslim are you? You are just another of those right wing warmongers?

You are in no position to question what religion I am. If you told me you were a Christian or whatever I would take your word for it. Not a right wing warmonger but I do believe there are times when force is needed. I will remind you that I am not advocating a ground war/ full invasion of Iran. I am advocating destroying the nuclear facilities.


Yeah, the US has already messed up Iraq....it would be better to get the blood on someone elses' hands for this one?

I agree. I say support the ones that will be most affected by a nuclear Iran. Give aid to either Israel or the Saudis to do the job.


And you know this how?

Democracy has checks and balances. Also history has shown Democracies typically let diplomacy work things out among other Democracies.



With the current situation in Pakistan, it wouldn't be terribly smart to attack Iran?

The situation in Pakistan is very worrying if you ask me. However if things look to dangerous expect a war with India. India will not let a radical government take over in Pakistan with nukes.

Also I do not think the situation in Pakistan really has a correlation with Iran's. Unless of course you want to elaborate on what you think on this point.

true since the military capablities of the arab militaries have declined isreal is the superpower of the area, and iran is pretty much the area's china, the underdog if you will, and are held in check by turkey now instead of iraqYou forget Pakistan, India, and the US-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq.

I feel that the Supreme Council is first and foremost a security seeking entity, whose primary goal is to cement their own dominance over Iran from all threats foreign and domestic, and as such, the development of nuclear arms would greatly benefit their goal. Especially given that a substantial number of regional opponents are already nuclear powers(see: US, Israel, France), or are well on their way to achieving that goal (see: Egypt, Saudi Arabia). Furthermore, Iran has still not forgotten their war with Iraq back in the eighties, and the devastation that said war wrought on their country. IF Iran were to successfully develop an atomic bomb, they could likely consider themselves immune from such a foreign threat, under the umbrella of Assured Destruction.

Further, on a more macro scale it remains that there is a substantial attitude of entitlement to regional dominance as an element of existing Persian culture. The Islamic Republic, interestingly enough, has been comparatively well behaved on this matter, especially in comparison to the Shah, who had made substantial progress on his own covert nuclear weapons program. Recent activities, though, seem to indicate a change in this trend. Increases in both funding to, and the activity of the Quds Force, as well as Iranian proxies throughout the region has increased dramatically. The fall of the Hussein regime in Iraq has also provided Iran with fertile ground for action and expansion. Possession of nuclear weapons also seems to fit this as a motivator as well. With a nuclear arsenal, Iranian regional power and prestige will both increase substantially. Whereas certain actions might once have resulted in open war, when you are the only belligerent armed with nuclear weapons the risk of war from those actions is substantially decreased. Nuclear weapons allow for increased range of action, something that an increasingly regionally assertive Iran would benefit greatly from.

Iran certainly has the motive for developing a nuclear arsenal, based off of this assessment, but do they have the technical knowledge, and sufficient access to the requisite raw materials: Simply, yes.

As to evidence one way or another, I personally lack access to the type of technical specifications and readouts that would be required to make a clear decision one way or another, but there is some circumstantial evidence that they are indeed. First is the resistance of the Iranian government to accept the Russian deal, in which Russia would provide Iran with reactor fuel, and then deal with the waste products for Iran. This is no mean deal: The costs of processing and reprocessing reactor fuel rods are substantial, and if someone is offering to do it for you, then if your goal was the production of power, then this would seem to be the sort of thing one would spring for.

Further, the level of reinforcement and camouflage being applied to Iranian nuclear facilities is virtually unheard of. So much so, as to be widely credited with the development of a new weapons system (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dshtw.htm) by the United States. (Contrary to popular belief, the RNEP is not the choice weapon for this job. Likely, the RNEP is designed to target two heavily fortified Russian command and control facilities, not Iran) The Natanz and Al Arak facilities are unique in their design, to be sufficiently robust to withstand attacks from conventional Earth Penetrators at the time of the beginning of construction.

Further, the Natanz centrifuge cascade is substantially larger than what one would need for the creation of Uranium enriched to a level usable in the Bushehr reactor for energy. This fact alone raises eyebrows.

Further, we can also develop a better understanding of what Iran is doing by observing the actions of those whom a nuclear Iran would impact most: Their neighbors. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Of these, the Israelis are already a nuclear power, and the Egyptians and Saudis are working on their own nuclear programs, largely in response to the perceived actions of Iran.

Even though I feel that there is a strong case that can be made that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear arsenal, I fully oppose the use of military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear power. Excluding the Russians, the Permanent members of the UNSC are concerned about the regional consequences of a nuclear equipped Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Iran's neighbors, excluding their ally Syria, are even more concerned. All the same, Iran is a ways off from successfully building a nuclear weapon. Putting pressure on Iran, and isolating them from the international community and international markets, is a well advised choice, and sanctions and threats are likely to be sufficient for some time to come.

Further, the Iranian people are increasingly dissatisfied with their government. They have little real representation, and popular attitudes differ strongly from those of the elites. Making war on Iran, even limited surgical air strikes, would polarize the Iranian people against the west. Doing so would be most inadvisable. Something I believe the foreign policy elites in the US, Israel, UK and France all understand quite clearly, and further they understand that making war on Iran would, in general, be an awful idea.

For all Ahmadinejad's posturing, we don't know what the boys higher up in the Iranian hierarchy are thinking.

Quite. Ahmadinejad is not a true powerholder in Iran, and it is truly difficult to fully gaugethe attitudes of Supreme Council, although in a country where this is what reformers (http://777denny.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/iran-khatami-torture.jpg) do, I can't imagine what the attitudes of a hardliner must be.

This is no mean deal: The costs of processing and reprocessing reactor fuel rods are substantial, and if someone is offering to do it for you, then if your goal was the production of power, then this would seem to be the sort of thing one would spring for.


It makes one wonder what Russia would stand to gain from such a trade?

It makes one wonder what Russia would stand to gain from such a trade?

Goodwill from the west and monetary compensation.

Just a quick "your poll sucks" note: it should have been multi-choice, because I think "they haven't decided yet" is closest to the truth, but want to indicate that I'm OK with them building nukes.

Let's just list some of their neighbours: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq.

Hell, Iran needs nukes more than the United States does!

Democracy has checks and balances. Also history has shown Democracies typically let diplomacy work things out among other Democracies.


The existence of George Bush jr disproves everything in this sentence.

Is Iran developing nukes? My gut instincts says they are but as for proof, it is rather difficult to come by.

The existence of George Bush jr disproves everything in this sentence.

Oh brother! :rolleyes:

Oh brother! :rolleyes:

George's diplomatic "With us or against us"? George's law abiding "I can make signing statements for any legislation that restricts me"? George "change the definitions of people fighting us to something unambiguous so we don't follow the laws of war"?

That George W Bush?

Get your head out of the sand Corny. Even if there never was a George, those so called checks and balances have been eroded at since day one. Democracy always devolves into a dictatorship of some sort. Power flows upwards, and that's where it will always stay.

I suspect that they are trying to get nuclear bombs.

George's diplomatic "With us or against us"? George's law abiding "I can make signing statements for any legislation that restricts me"? George "change the definitions of people fighting us to something unambiguous so we don't follow the laws of war"?

That George W Bush?

Get your head out of the sand Corny. Even if there never was a George, those so called checks and balances have been eroded at since day one. Democracy always devolves into a dictatorship of some sort. Power flows upwards, and that's where it will always stay.

And yet what are you trying to prove? The statement made was Democracy has checks and balances. Also history has shown Democracies typically let diplomacy work things out among other Democracies.

This statement is indeed true and yet you are trying to prove it isn't and you are failing miserably. So can we please return to the topic or are you just going to rant against Bush in a thread that has nothing to do with Bush?

This statement is indeed true and yet you are trying to prove it isn't and you are failing miserably. So can we please return to the topic or are you just going to rant against Bush in a thread that has nothing to do with Bush?

Seconded.

The United States' involvement in the Middle East is relevant.

But USA =/= GWB, and it would be reasonable to apply NAS's oxymoronic "Power flows upwards" statement equally to the USA and Iran.
If it's fair to say "the Mullahs are the real power behind Aheminajad" then it would be fair to say "some Group are the real power behind GWB."

You don't just wave the magic wand of "Democracy" over it and make it alright. Arms races don't work like that. They're a simple matter of national self-interest. I mean, what the fuck else do you do when the country right next door starts arming itself to the teeth?

The only important consideration is national self-interest ... and it will be that way until "nations" are eradicated ... which will probably be a long, long time.

I'm sure we win some kind of prize when it's all over, though.

"First species to knowingly and with malice aforethought EXTINCT ITSELF" perhaps?

I want EQUAL rights for Iran and Israel.
Yes because you want every last Jew killed.really? I did not get the memo :D

Yes because you want every last Jew killed.And there descended the thread, never to return...damn right.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12814204&postcount=58
Prosecution rests your honor.You can post your collection of OD-is-anti-semite links.. anytime now..

And yet what are you trying to prove? The statement made was Democracy has checks and balances. Also history has shown Democracies typically let diplomacy work things out among other Democracies.

This statement is indeed true and yet you are trying to prove it isn't and you are failing miserably. So can we please return to the topic or are you just going to rant against Bush in a thread that has nothing to do with Bush?

The point my dear Corny, is that the checks and balances don't work. Bush is simply a convenient example of them not working. Hugo Chavez could just as easily fill the role, the only lack being that he hasn't gone on any extra-border military adventures without attempts at diplomacy. Musharraf could also fill that role, although you and I both know Pakistan isn't really a democracy.

The point my dear Corny, is that the checks and balances don't work. Bush is simply a convenient example of them not working. Hugo Chavez could just as easily fill the role, the only lack being that he hasn't gone on any extra-border military adventures without attempts at diplomacy. Musharraf could also fill that role, although you and I both know Pakistan isn't really a democracy.

Would you care to explain the "power flows upwards" thing which was the summary of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13203508&postcount=46) post? The one with which you kicked off what will surely be a long and satisfying mutual sadomasochistic bull session?

What I mean is this:

are you talking about nations that contend with each other, are you talking about a "clash of civilizations" ( a concept with some merit, despite being adopted as a book title by ... er, someone), are you talking about social forces directing the actions of nations, or about a beauty contest between GWB and Ahem-geeifhechangedhisnamehedbealotkmorepopularijad?

I could give a firm opinion on the last, but I'll stay out of the way if this is about some other level of analysis.

are you talking about nations that contend with each other, are you talking about a "clash of civilizations" ( a concept with some merit, despite being adopted as a book title by ... er, someone), are you talking about social forces directing the actions of nations,

My response was in contention to the remark of democracies having checks and balances (with the implication that they work) and a higher tendency to democracy as opposed to force.

Checks and balances do not work because they are enforced by people who, unless immortal and unchanging, will be subverted or rendered ineffectual by those who desire power without exception. Any form of power sharing basis, especially so for those with mass power sharing, will eventually collate into a small circle of elite as the masses give away that power.

This is particularly easy in a democracy because of the short term memory of the average citizen who will vote in the most skilled liar but forget about all the broken promises come next election.


or about a beauty contest between GWB and Ahem-geeifhechangedhisnamehedbealotkmorepopularijad?


Such an event would be most certainly startling, I assure you.

Yes because you want every last Jew killed.

The guy's a Nazi, what do you expect?

I do not know.. Meaning I have not been looking for that information. If they are.. big flip. I do not think they are some evil menace. If that were the case.. we would've been attacked. When have we been attacked by anyone? drop 9-11 (you're a muppet if you believe WE didn't have a hand in it -- Same with the USS Liberty -- Pearl Harbor.. those top bastards new). We haven't. WE are a terror. Don't even let me mention what the hell we did to Japan. Saved lives? Kiss my ass. Sad Sad! When I actually think about it .. it makes me want to cry. Because I love this land. Even though I have different thoughts of the civil war.. We all still died on this land. And yes.. surprise surprise I side with south there.. Now... cal me a nazi .. a klan member you fcuking idiot.

The United States' involvement in the Middle East is relevant.Only for US aims and profits.

But USA =/= GWB, For people outside the US, the conduct of the president is indistinguishable from that of the country he leads. And since the country's representation, especially the military, does abroad what the president says there is no need for distinction either.

The guy's a Nazi, what do you expect?IDF's the Nazi.

Only for US aims and profits.

For people outside the US, the conduct of the president is indistinguishable from that of the country he leads. And since the country's representation, especially the military, does abroad what the president says there is no need for distinction either.

IDF's the Nazi.

Has the same mind set on certain things.. for sure. He's not he only one... there are quite a few on here. That they don't relate their mind set to what they salivate after .. is numbing.

Naturality, IDF is an extremist who advocates a one-party Zionist state based around the barbaric and oppressive Old Testament and Talmud, combined with a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

Naturality, IDF is an extremist who advocates a one-party Zionist state based around the barbaric and oppressive Old Testament and Talmud, combined with a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

And the proof of this is where?

The United States' involvement in the Middle East is relevant.Only for US aims and profits.

I meant it was relevant to the question of Iran building nukes. That's all.

And the proof of this is where?

Already with the "prove it"?

Just feel the love ... or whatever that was.

And the proof of this is where?
NSG.

The point my dear Corny, is that the checks and balances don't work. Bush is simply a convenient example of them not working.

Care to back that up? Is it because he got re-elected?

Hugo Chavez could just as easily fill the role, the only lack being that he hasn't gone on any extra-border military adventures without attempts at diplomacy. Musharraf could also fill that role, although you and I both know Pakistan isn't really a democracy.

You are not making any points and until you do, I'll stick to the topic.

Naturality, IDF is an extremist who advocates a one-party Zionist state based around the barbaric and oppressive Old Testament and Talmud, combined with a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

And the proof of this is where?

NSG.

And the proof is where AP?

NSG.

And you're a baby eating Stalinist, Aztec deity worshiping, virgin sacrificing mass murderer who wants to plunge the world into a thousand years of darkness. Where's the proof? The same place as your "evidence".

You're not fooling anyone AP. All you've got is bile, and not a whit of worth.

Care to back that up? Is it because he got re-elected?

Hardly. Your attempt at being snide is antiquated so far as forum technique goes.

You know as well as I do that on the surface, those checks and balances are supposed to be the executive, judiciary and legislative branches.

As for not working. When the executive gets to pick who the judiciary is and the legislature does nothing but pointless bickering while attempting to further their agenda which only further robs the country are you seriously telling me that that's your idea of "working"?

If you think that just because those checks and balances are supposed to work that they will, you're hopelessly naive.


You are not making any points and until you do, I'll stick to the topic.

I did. You merely ignored it.

Erm, right. Back on topic ladies?

If there's no evidence that they are building nuclear weapons or going beyond the remit of the NNPT, then we have to go on the evidence in front of us.

The last time the evidence said one thing, and leaders said 'Ignore it. Listen to us!' we all know what happened.

While I have no doubt it's an aim for them to achieve parity with other nuclear powers, I also don't think their leaders are retarded. I don't see them launching left, right and centre if something doesn't go their way. Because they're Arab or Muslim or 'Brown', doesn't mean they're stupid. While the technology is very much offensive, it's also very defensive.

To be honest, I'm much more worried about the state of Pakistan than I am about a country that to be honest, has fuck all friends or supporters around it.

If there's no evidence that they are building nuclear weapons or going beyond the remit of the NNPT, then we have to go on the evidence in front of us.


Even if they wanted to build them, based on what we know of their enrichment capabilities, they're at least a year or more from even having sufficient plutonium or enriched uranium to use as a bomb.

Short of them having it delivered to them by another power, it's doubtful that even if they wanted a bomb, they'd be able to build it anytime soon.

Is Iran building nukes? Well, depends what stage their program is at.
Are they building nuclear power stations? Yes, almost certainly. I'd be surprised if they haven't got one up and running by now. And if they haven't, they will soon.

The most basic nuclear power plant (the British Magnox design) works with natural uranium - no enrichment required. Natural uranium is 0.7 % U-235 (the fissile isotope) and 99.3 % U-238 (the non fissile isotope).

Later designs, such as pressurised water reactors, use partially enriched uranium (between 3 and 5 % U-235). This makes for a faster reactor, which lasts longer between refueling, and is more efficient. It does however have slightly more potential to go into meltdown if the cooling is shut off or the control rods are removed too fast. Not inherently safe.

The most recent designs, including the modular high temperature gas-cooled reactors and the TRIGA reactor (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics) are more versatile. They can used uranium or plutonium, as well as small amounts of thorium (which has a couple of fissile isotopes, but is not very naturally abundant). Usually they are in the form of MOX fuel (Mixed OXide), which has a far higher melting point (it is in fact a ceramic refractory material), meaning the reactors are less likely to meltdown in the case of an uncontrolled reaction. The latest technology includes the use of zirconium alloys in the moderator, which automatically shut down the reactor if the temperature rises above a certain point. This makes the control rods virtually redundant (although they are still used for fine-tuning the reaction) and loss of coolant is not catastrophic.

To build a nuclear bomb on the other hand, you need highly enriched fuel. Uranium enriched to 90 % U-235 will work quite well (this was what the Hiroshima bomb was made from). But Plutonium works a lot better (the Nagasaki bomb was plutonium, and yielded more than twice the explosive power as the uranium based Hiroshima bomb).

But to get plutonium, you first have to run a nuclear reactor on uranium for about 20 years. During the lifetime of the fuel, some of the U-238 gets transmuted into plutonium. Better still, you can run a fast breeder reactor, which runs at a much higher temperature (uses liquid sodium or in some cases a sodium / potassium alloy as the coolant), and breeds much more plutonium.

But in either case, what you really need is an efficient fuel reprocessing plant. Up until 1980, there wasn't one, anywhere in the world. The British had built one (THORP at Sellafield, Cumbria). It was put into action in 1980, and is still going today. It's the only part of BNFL (British Nuclear FueLs) that makes a profit, because it accepts spent nuclear fuel from all over the world. Reprocessing reduces the volume of waste, and in turn produces more fuel, which may be used to fuel reactors again, or used to make bombs.

If Iran builds a similar facility, they will be able to make their own plutonium bombs without any outside assistance (except for accepting deliveries of spent fuel rods, which are abundant in Russia, France, the USA and Britain).
Otherwise, they will need an enrichment plant to make highly enriched uranium bombs (very expensive and difficult to do). Or they could just buy some plutonium from decomissioned warheads in Russia. They would then just need to put together the implosion assembly to make the bomb work, and make a rocket capable of delivering it anywhere in the world.

All of this is technically possible, and economically feasible, given that Iran is an oil exporting country and that the oil price is still rather high. Should we be worried? Well, only if Bush decides to wage war on Iran. Not a pretty thought. Although economics could stop that in it's tracks - Congress is unlikely to give him funding for another war. The Iraq war has already eaten up 10 times more than it was predicted to cost.

Is Iran building nukes? Well, depends what stage their program is at.
Are they building nuclear power stations? Yes, almost certainly. I'd be surprised if they haven't got one up and running by now. And if they haven't, they will soon.


I believe the Bushehr facility is operational, and that another plant not far from Bushehr is being made ready by the Russians.

And you're a baby eating Stalinist, Aztec deity worshiping, virgin sacrificing mass murderer who wants to plunge the world into a thousand years of darkness. Where's the proof? The same place as your "evidence".this is not acceptable.

I do not react that way everytime IDF (or his friends/puppets) call me a Nazi/Anti-semite.
The IDFs do repeatedly godwhin other people too... and -I have not seen them- react that way.

you should retract it.

Is Iran building nukes? Well, depends what stage their program is at.
Are they building nuclear power stations? Yes, almost certainly. I'd be surprised if they haven't got one up and running by now. And if they haven't, they will soon.

Huh? What do they need one for? Don't they have lots of natural gas?

The most basic nuclear power plant (the British Magnox design) works with natural uranium - no enrichment required. Natural uranium is 0.7 % U-235 (the fissile isotope) and 99.3 % U-238 (the non fissile isotope).

Later designs, such as pressurised water reactors, use partially enriched uranium (between 3 and 5 % U-235). This makes for a faster reactor, which lasts longer between refueling, and is more efficient. It does however have slightly more potential to go into meltdown if the cooling is shut off or the control rods are removed too fast. Not inherently safe.

The most recent designs, including the modular high temperature gas-cooled reactors and the TRIGA reactor (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics) are more versatile. They can use uranium or plutonium, as well as small amounts of thorium (which has a couple of fissile isotopes, but is not very naturally abundant). Usually they are in the form of MOX fuel (Mixed OXide), which has a far higher melting point (it is in fact a ceramic refractory material), meaning the reactors are less likely to meltdown in the case of an uncontrolled reaction. The latest technology includes the use of zirconium alloys in the moderator, which automatically shut down the reactor if the temperature rises above a certain point. This makes the control rods virtually redundant (although they are still used for fine-tuning the reaction) and loss of coolant is not catastrophic.

Quoted in full because I learnt something from it.

To build a nuclear bomb on the other hand, you need highly enriched fuel. Uranium enriched to 90 % U-235 will work quite well (this was what the Hiroshima bomb was made from). But Plutonium works a lot better (the Nagasaki bomb was plutonium, and yielded more than twice the explosive power as the uranium based Hiroshima bomb).

But to get plutonium, you first have to run a nuclear reactor on uranium for about 20 years. During the lifetime of the fuel, some of the U-238 gets transmuted into plutonium. Better still, you can run a fast breeder reactor, which runs at a much higher temperature (uses liquid sodium or in some cases a sodium / potassium alloy as the coolant), and breeds much more plutonium.

But in either case, what you really need is an efficient fuel reprocessing plant. Up until 1980, there wasn't one, anywhere in the world. The British had built one (THORP at Sellafield, Cumbria). It was put into action in 1980, and is still going today. It's the only part of BNFL (British Nuclear FueLs) that makes a profit, because it accepts spent nuclear fuel from all over the world. Reprocessing reduces the volume of waste, and in turn produces more fuel, which may be used to fuel reactors again, or used to make bombs.

Wow, you put effort into this. Again, interesting and somewhat relevant.

If Iran builds a similar facility, they will be able to make their own plutonium bombs without any outside assistance (except for accepting deliveries of spent fuel rods, which are abundant in Russia, France, the USA and Britain).

It sounds a bit beyond their industrial / tech range to me.

Any idea what kinds of materials or equipment they might need to import to make such a plant?
Wouldn't it be quite easy for the IAEA to spot such imports?

I'm asking politely because I just don't know and you sound like you've at least done some research. (got heaps to read before getting into that, too)

Otherwise, they will need an enrichment plant to make highly enriched uranium bombs (very expensive and difficult to do). Or they could just buy some plutonium from decomissioned warheads in Russia.

Sounds a lot easier. Then I guess it comes down to whether Russia or any of the nuclear armed republics trust Iran to have a bomb. The money would be good.

They would then just need to put together the implosion assembly to make the bomb work, and make a rocket capable of delivering it anywhere in the world.

In fact, putting all the money into a missile system makes more sense. If there's even a chance they can hit targets globally, they have a great deterrent because who can really be sure they don't have a fully effective bomb, bought entire?

All of this is technically possible, and economically feasible, given that Iran is an oil exporting country and that the oil price is still rather high. Should we be worried? Well, only if Bush decides to wage war on Iran. Not a pretty thought. Although economics could stop that in it's tracks - Congress is unlikely to give him funding for another war. The Iraq war has already eaten up 10 times more than it was predicted to cost.

And looking at a map, Iran does not look like an easy place to secure. A population twice that of Iraq, and mountains everywhere like Afghanistan.

The administration shouldn't bluff what it can't do, is my take on that. In fact, all the posturing might just be aimed at Iraqi public opinion!

Huh? What do they need one for? Don't they have lots of natural gas?That doesn't cover Iran's rising demand for energy.

this is not acceptable.

I do not react that way everytime IDF (or his friends/puppets) call me a Nazi/Anti-semite.
The IDFs do repeatedly godwhin other people too... and -I have not seen them- react that way.

you should retract it.

?

You do realize that the entire purpose of that spiel was to highlight how ridiculous his claims are?

Sounds a lot easier. Then I guess it comes down to whether Russia or any of the nuclear armed republics trust Iran to have a bomb. The money would be good.


For all the fiction of Russian nuclear materials on the black market though, I don't think there's ever been a confirmed event where a working nuclear device went missing. Nuclear materials, yes. But not an actual bomb.

Good article on Russia and Iran:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9988817
Last tango in Tehran

An assertive Russia is choosing to pursue its own foreign-policy goals, and they differ from the West's.

That doesn't cover Iran's rising demand for energy.

Hey? Every big industrial economy relies heavily on fossil fuels at present.
And it's not a greenhouse-gas decision. I can't see how Iran needs nuclear power. They could even burn oil for electricity.

They might want it anyway, as a status symbol of some kind.

For all the fiction of Russian nuclear materials on the black market though, I don't think there's ever been a confirmed event where a working nuclear device went missing. Nuclear materials, yes. But not an actual bomb.

I didn't say "went missing" ... and I wasn't really putting a position, just speculating. But I will say, if Russia for instance sold Iran a nuke, they wouldn't tell everybody. That's for the Iranians to decide, and Iran might opt for "keep it secret until we need it."

It's actually a different situation than Russian nukes (or the republics which claim not to have any...) falling into the hands of terrorists. Some guy blows himself up along with a stolen or purchased nuke, the victim country is going to put all the blame on whoever sold it to them (at least at first). Iran, facing invasion, reveals ownership of a weapon, and all the vendor did wrong was break the NPT, which is worthless rag anyway. Iran nukes someone, most of the blame falls on Iran.

It's really not the same.

No, but I'm okay if they do.

Mainly because I dont think the US, France, the UK, Russia and China should have nukes.

So either everyone get rids of them, or we stop being hypocritical and let everyone have them.

I didn't say "went missing" ... and I wasn't really putting a position, just speculating. But I will say, if Russia for instance sold Iran a nuke, they wouldn't tell everybody. That's for the Iranians to decide, and Iran might opt for "keep it secret until we need it."

It's actually a different situation than Russian nukes (or the republics which claim not to have any...) falling into the hands of terrorists. Some guy blows himself up along with a stolen or purchased nuke, the victim country is going to put all the blame on whoever sold it to them (at least at first). Iran, facing invasion, reveals ownership of a weapon, and all the vendor did wrong was break the NPT, which is worthless rag anyway. Iran nukes someone, most of the blame falls on Iran.

It's really not the same.

Maybe so, but as cash strapped as Russia was after the collapse, there was never anything to suggest nuclear arms sales on their side. Why start now?

My response was in contention to the remark of democracies having checks and balances (with the implication that they work) and a higher tendency to democracy as opposed to force.

Checks and balances do not work because they are enforced by people who, unless immortal and unchanging, will be subverted or rendered ineffectual by those who desire power without exception. Any form of power sharing basis, especially so for those with mass power sharing, will eventually collate into a small circle of elite as the masses give away that power.


(I missed this the first time through) ... What I don't understand about that view is the time element. You describe this 'inevitable' process, but where is it's starting-point? A revolution? ... an invasion followed by a golden age of living of the spoils? ... the writing of an idealistic new constitution?

Where's the 'start' of this 'process' ?

Good article on Russia and Iran:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9988817

ANOTHER link from The Economist ? How much do they pay you per placement? :p

No, but I'm okay if they do.

Mainly because I dont think the US, France, the UK, Russia and China should have nukes.

Yeah, I'd like that too. :(
Despite being generally anti-military spending by anyone, I like the SDI and it's ilk (the Chinese being the next most likely to do it) ... seems like a huge waste of money, but if missiles were obsoleted, the disadvantages of having nuclear warheads at all might start to count.
Mutually assured destruction might have worked the first time as a strategy, but it was always risky and with more parties in the race ... someone will fuck up someday.

Maybe so, but as cash strapped as Russia was after the collapse, there was never anything to suggest nuclear arms sales on their side. Why start now?

My point was that Russia has every reason to keep such sales secret.
"Nothing to suggest" doesn't mean much, nor does my speculation.
We just don't know.

How did Israel get nuclear weapons? We just don't know.

(I missed this the first time through) ... What I don't understand about that view is the time element. You describe this 'inevitable' process, but where is it's starting-point? A revolution? ... an invasion followed by a golden age of living of the spoils? ... the writing of an idealistic new constitution?

Where's the 'start' of this 'process' ?

The beginning subversion process has no clearly defined starting point. But since we're using democracies as established governments, assuming that the founders really had the best intentions, the subversion process can begin as early as soon as the constitutions are written and the framework of government established.

All it would require at that point is a clever person of questionable virtue with a desire for power greater than he/she currently holds.

The resources needed will become available either by deceit or confidence and the way forward, well, there's always a way.

There is no free lunch...

That's your first post since February 2003?!? :eek:

Considering who else in the region has nukes, it is only reasonable to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

Agreed. Just look at Irans situation: its neighbouring country was invaded by a country that does not like Iran much either, the not so friendly state of Israel has nukes thanks to some not-all-too-legal actions, Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes... hell, Iran needs nukes to restore some balance.

Add to that the US sanctions, a sense of pride and the complete mockery the NPT has become in the past few years and it is a miracle they did not start a program several years ago.

How did Israel get nuclear weapons? We just don't know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_wmd#Development_program

Basically, the British helped them.

Iran doesn't necessarily need nuclear reactors for the power they produce. Although they will need another source of energy someday, when their oil / gas reserves run out. Nuclear isn't such a bad choice, given that modern reactor designs are quite safe and foolproof (even given a very determined fool).

But I suspect it really wants nuclear reactors so that it can breed some plutonium to make bombs with. It's probably cheaper in the long run than buying old plutonium from Russia.

In ether case, nuclear power plants and / or fuel reprocessing plants produce a lot of heat, which would make them easy to spot with a thermal imaging recon satellite. Of course, it would be tricky to distinguish from a standard fossil-fueled power plant (or from a burning oil well, for that matter). And not all modern reactor designs have the classic sphere or dome shape on top.

If you are wondering how I know all this - bear in mind that I studied nuclear power and particle physics at university. I don't think I could actually build a power plant or a bomb by myself though.

They probably have the tech an possibility to build nukes, but I doubt they actually are. If anything, I'd bet they're settling for conventional weapons stockpiling, but probably not that either.

Not that I'd mind if they were; they're not yet threatening Europe, just the illegal occupationists of Iraq, and the friends of the occupationists in the Arab countries. :p

They probably have the tech an possibility to build nukes, but I doubt they actually are. If anything, I'd bet they're settling for conventional weapons stockpiling, but probably not that either.

Not that I'd mind if they were; they're not yet threatening Europe, just the illegal occupationists of Iraq, and the friends of the occupationists in the Arab countries. :p

I don't get your joke sorry. Or are you rejoicing at the thought of resumed conflict between Iraq and Iran ?

Does it matter?

Does it matter?

Actually yes.

I have a problem with the quiz.

i chose the first one of these two.

No, but if they wanted I wouldn't mind.
No, and rightly so.


I would have rather had a
"No, but it is certainly their sovereign right to."
because the 2nd no sort of implies as a sovereign nation they have no right to.
I might be missing on this one because....
--It might be immoral to bring more nukes into this world...
--As well it might be immoral not to dismantle existing nukes...
These two would have to go together.


"I wouldn't mind"
might imply, along with the disinfo rhetoric that exists in the real world:
"that Iran wants to destroy Israel in any form it exists",
...the "I wouldn't mind" sort of implies one is ok with the one might be "ok" with Iran (which is by pro-war rhetoric is fanatical and) destroying Israel.

But Iran does not want to destroy Israel, and Israeli gov't officials have even said opposite.


In a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer51.htm)


The IAEA
International Atomic Energy A....
has passed all the inspections on atomic energy vs vastly more required atomic weapons

Does it matter?

Actually yes.
Why does it matter?

I heard a rumor that the Iranians have a secret plan to nuke Corneliu's house, c/d?

Why does it matter?

Because it would make invading Iran scarier, silly.

I don't get your joke sorry. Or are you rejoicing at the thought of resumed conflict between Iraq and Iran ?

No, I'm rejoicing at the thought of resumed conflict between USA and the rest of the world. :D

I have a problem with the quiz.

i chose the first one of these two.

No, but if they wanted I wouldn't mind.
No, and rightly so.


I would have rather had a
"No, but it is certainly their sovereign right to."
because the 2nd no sort of ...

Sorry, but after the dumbass (or "incoherent-arsehole" if your prefer) threads you have started, I stopped reading there.

Get a grip. That's a better OP than your eight. It's better than most of mine too.

Attacking the OP is too damn easy. As the thread progresses, whoever attacks the OP finds more and more zombies following them, zombies who have not wred the thread thruogh, but fnord to the OP, and bid their doing.

Zhus spake Tharastrusk-- hey-fuck I'm funnY!"

One lol, cmn, jst--

gnght, nsg

Sorry, but after the dumbass (or "incoherent-arsehole" if your prefer) threads you have started, I stopped reading there.

Get a grip. That's a better OP than your eight. It's better than most of mine too.

Attacking the OP is too damn easy. As the thread progresses, whoever attacks the OP finds more and more zombies following them, zombies who have not wred the thread thruogh, but fnord to the OP, and bid their doing.

Zhus spake Tharastrusk-- hey-fuck I'm funnY!"

One lol, cmn, jst--

gnght, nsg

i wasn't exactly in "attack mode" mentality.

perhaps having a "problem" was the wrong word for me to choose.

and i should have just said,
i would have liked it better for choice X to be there,
and left the word "problem" out.

ahh, the difficulties of communicating via the net...

so, please excuse me for the misunderstanding.
i did not mean it as "the op is a pile of x" or anything like that at all.

"No, but it is certainly their sovereign right to."

Actually...since they are part of the NPT, it is no longer their sovereign right to go after nuclear weapons. Nuclear power yes but not nuclear weapons.

Actually...since they are part of the NPT, it is no longer their sovereign right to go after nuclear weapons. Nuclear power yes but not nuclear weapons.

hmm, i see.
and all other nation/states that have signed this are adhering to it?
and not trying in any way to get around it, say with "usable"(hahaha) mini-nukes?

still,
the IAEA has said they are passing all inspections so far

Actually...since they are part of the NPT, it is no longer their sovereign right to go after nuclear weapons. Nuclear power yes but not nuclear weapons.

However, one can hardly deny the NPT is a joke.
To illustrate this: Iran is one of the signees that has obeyed the NPT best (so far). And sanctions for violations of the NPT by other countries have been nonexistent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_wmd#Development_program

Basically, the British helped them.

and the french...

The US let them...

Edit: As for the question. Yes I do think they are pursueing nuclear weaponry. I do not think that it is a good thing, however, it is not the end of the world either. Moreover I think that they might be pursuaded to agree to a nuclear-free middle east... But this would also mean that Israel would have to dispose of its nuclear arsenal... So Yes and bad, but not as bad as to allow military action against Iran.

However, one can hardly deny the NPT is a joke.
To illustrate this: Iran is one of the signees that has obeyed the NPT best (so far). And sanctions for violations of the NPT by other countries have been nonexistent.

And hence why I condemn the United Nations!

And hence why I condemn the United Nations!

The UN is as effective as the Hegemon and major powers allow it to be... Why condemn the UN? condemn the permanent five :)

The UN is as effective as the Hegemon and major powers allow it to be... Why condemn the UN? condemn the permanent five :)

I condemn it all.

Some Jewish country nearby is having hundreds of nukes…

Isn’t that dangerous as well?

Should we not invade Israel now?

Some Jewish country nearby is having hundreds of nukes…

Isn’t that dangerous as well?

Nope!

Should we not invade Israel now?

You do and it looks like they are going to lose, they will use them. It is called the Samson Option.

Nope!

You do and it looks like they are going to lose, they will use them. It is called the Samson Option.

Why do you think that Iran is more dangerous than the states currently in the nuclear club?

Why do you think that Iran is more dangerous than the states currently in the nuclear club?

Because we all know that Israel will not use them unless it looks like they are going to go down.

Nope!


So it is not dangerous that Israel is having nukes, a country known for its countless invasions of other countries.
A country which is permanently at war.

But it is dangerous for Iran? A country with a poor invasion history record...

You do and it looks like they are going to lose, they will use them. It is called the Samson Option.

I think the Iranian people need their Samson Option (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SamsonGertGeitje.jpg) as wel, no?

So it is not dangerous that Israel is having nukes, a country known for its countless invasions of other countries.
A country which is permanently at war.

After being invaded by all of their neighbors at least twice and have only two peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, the whole region is permanently at war with Israel.

But it is dangerous for Iran? A country with a poor invasion history record...

Judging by the reaction of the region with the possibility of Iran getting nukes.

I think the Iranian people need their Samson Option (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SamsonGertGeitje.jpg) as wel, no?

Why? All Iran is currently doing is destabilizing the region.

Because we all know that Israel will not use them unless it looks like they are going to go down.

Do we actually know that?

Do we actually know that?

Well...since they have not used nuclear weapons at all in any of their conflicts (though rumor has it a bomb was in the air during one of their early wars) I am willing to say its a good bet that they will not use them unless it looks like they are going to go down.

Well...since they have not used nuclear weapons at all in any of their conflicts (though rumor has it a bomb was in the air during one of their early wars) I am willing to say its a good bet that they will not use them unless it looks like they are going to go down.

Well neither have Russia or Pakistan or India - do you feel the same way about them?

Well...since they have not used nuclear weapons at all in any of their conflicts (though rumor has it a bomb was in the air during one of their early wars) I am willing to say its a good bet that they will not use them unless it looks like they are going to go down.

Isn't the USA still the only country that has actually used nuclear bombs in conflict ?

Well neither have Russia or Pakistan or India - do you feel the same way about them?

For India and Russia. Yes

For Pakistan, at the moment yes.

More and more, I think our reality is crawling towards dystopia. Iran is an angry third-world nation. I don't have evidence but I'll bet my entire eBay credentials that they are helping out neighboring countries, especially Iraq and Afghanistan with the arms race.

Why?

1. Geography plays a colossal role in a nation's development and mentality.
2. They have enough oil to sell/trade to buy the necessary raw ingredients for nukes.
3. They don't bathe regularly.
4. They're not on the US' priority list since they're hard to reach.
5. They just are... I can feel it in my bones.

Isn't the USA still the only country that has actually used nuclear bombs in conflict ?

Back in 1945 against a militaristic regime that would rather die than surrender. Thank God for the Emperor.

For India and Russia. Yes

For Pakistan, at the moment yes.

I would trust Iran far more than Pakistan at the moment.

I would trust Iran far more than Pakistan at the moment.

Notice that I said, at the moment yes. That can change.

After being invaded by all of their neighbors at least twice and have only two peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, the whole region is permanently at war with Israel.

Judging by the reaction of the region with the possibility of Iran getting nukes.

Why? All Iran is currently doing is destabilizing the region.

How is Iran destabilizing the region?

Does Iran have some imperialistic tendencies? Yes
Does it destabilize the region or threaten its neighbours? No

That, together with the sheer pointlessness of nuclear power in a country with so much oil and gas, points to me that they're trying to build a long-term insurance policy for themselves.

You are using an argument that sounds rational on the surface, but think about what is done with the majority of oil and gas...it is sold to other countries. This resource is what creates "cash flow" for the economy. If they used all the oil and gas they produced internally, then they would piss off multi-national corps, their shareholders, and "home" countries. This would lead to sanctions and probably conflict if they resisted international markets. So the plentiful oil and gas argument for why they must be creating nuclear weapons is illogical.

Western countries need to realized that military might has secured the last 40-100 years of our dominance, so anyway a country can get some negotiating room within this established power structure, they will follow that route. If we really believe in sovereign nations, then we need to accept that countries will pursue routes that are contrary to our approval. Weather or not and/or how we should stop them is another issue.

I dont know.

I do know the last time we did this, when a country was telling us "we dont have em, and we arent making them", they werent, and didnt, and we invaded anyway.
Look where that got us.

Now, were all set to do it again.

I say, this time, lets see what happens.

They say they arent, but havent allowed inspectors in yet.
That makes me a little nervous, but avoided another Iraq should be paramount if we have any sense.
The question is...do we?

I do recall, however, that it was pretty plainly obvious that Iraq was making biological and chemical weapons, on the reports of inspectors who came to the country (c.f. The Iraq War Reader).

I do recall, however, that it was pretty plainly obvious that Iraq was making biological and chemical weapons, on the reports of inspectors who came to the country (c.f. The Iraq War Reader).

Weapons that turned out not to exist, or at least are so well hidden (along with the huge facilities that made them), that noone has managed to find them yet.
As, oddly enough, can be said about those expert reports you mention.

Iran is purposely keeping the issue vague just so they can hold all the cards.

They are just retaining the option of "can go nuclear if they want to" without going explicitly and overtly nuclear.

You are using an argument that sounds rational on the surface, but think about what is done with the majority of oil and gas...it is sold to other countries.
Do you have any figures on that? I assume you're right about gas...I'm not so sure about the oil.

Especially considering that their price controls are leading to long and very, very unpopular lines in front of the petrol stations. I can't imagine Ahmadinejad would willingly limit the amount of petrol that can be sold by exporting a big majority of the oil overseas.

But besides, I don't think the export share will be large enough to actually argue that there isn't enough of it there to just run conventional power stations. It's a choice, and considering the cost (both economic and political) of creating this nuclear program and the willingness to pay extra to keep it all inhouse, I have a feeling it just paying back in terms of domestic electricty production is not going to make it break even.

I do recall, however, that it was pretty plainly obvious that Iraq was making biological and chemical weapons, on the reports of inspectors who came to the country (c.f. The Iraq War Reader).good old Nigerian cake :D

Nigerian cake: "even after you eat me and throw-up.. the smell is so good. you still ready for more"
:D

No and they have as much right to build them as the US does.

Because it would make invading Iran scarier, silly.
Silly me!!!! :D

I do recall, however, that it was pretty plainly obvious that Iraq was making biological and chemical weapons, on the reports of inspectors who came to the country (c.f. The Iraq War Reader).

Youre kidding, right?

No. they werent.

The only such weapons they had, were the ones the US gave them during the IRAQ/iran conflict.

I think it's fairly obvious that they do have a Nuclear Weapons program. Their enrichment of Uranium far beyond what would be needed for a power generation program is just one of a myriad of facts which point to an Iranian Nuclear program.

Exactly. They do have a weapons program, and they want to nuke Israel and, if at all possible, the United States, and if they were to develop a nuclear weapon, I don't believe they would hesitate to use it, which is why I am against Iran having any nuclear weapons.

However, I'm torn about weather it's a good idea for Iran to posses Nuclear Weapons. On one hand, I recognize that Iran is a sovereign nation. Being the anti-internationalist that I am, I recognize them having the right to do anything that does not directly adversely (double adverb epic lulz) effect any other nation.

Yes, but what they do with it after they build it WILL adversely affect other nations. Especially Israel. And maybe even the US.

But, I am afraid of Iranian nuclear weapons getting in the hands of Militant groups. Iranian connections with Hezbollah and other extremest groups makes me fear that Iran would look the other way if one of these groups would want to "borrow" a Nuclear weapon.

QFT

In sort, I support positive diplomacy to halt the Iranian nuclear program. But I would never support aggressive military action against Iran.

I agree, except that I don't know if I would say never, e.g. if they already had one in the air, I would be all for military action against Iran.

Considering who else in the region has nukes, it is only reasonable to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

Israel: will not launch its nuclear weapons unless nuclear weapons are launched at it first

Arab nations in the Middle East: Will launch nuclear weapons in a heartbeat

Conclusion: No, it is NOT reasonable for Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons program. The only reason Israel has any nukes is to make its neighbors behave themselves, i.e. not attack Israel any more than they are already doing.

Yes because you want every last Jew killed.

I don't know if that is actually true, but at least it is very credible.

If you ask America or Israel - Yes, they are.

If you ask anyone else in the world, including the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) - No, they are not.

I tend to go with the world.

Israel: will not launch its nuclear weapons unless nuclear weapons are launched at it first

Arab nations in the Middle East: Will launch nuclear weapons in a heartbeat

Conclusion: No, it is NOT reasonable for Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons program. The only reason Israel has any nukes is to make its neighbors behave themselves, i.e. not attack Israel any more than they are already doing.:D

you think the semites are wacko.. dont you?

Israel: will not launch its nuclear weapons unless nuclear weapons are launched at it first

Why ? What kind of childish attitude is "we will take you with us when we die" ?