NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm debating my friend on this issue, and I wanted to see what other people think. So what do you think, and why? If you have articles on the topic please link them. I won't state my opinion for now.

State your opinion regardless of whether you think they have the right to do so. And this has nothing to do with whether the US or any other country should attack Iran to stop it if it is indeed developing weapons. Simply if one of the aims of Iran's nuclear program is nuclear weapons.

O, also, state yes even if you think Iran recently tried to develop them but stopped as the US national intelligence estimate said.

I don't work for MI6 so I have no idea.

I think they probably are trying. And no, they don't have the right. They have done nothing to prove that they deserve it and everything to prove they do not.

Nah.

The Ministry of Intelligence and National Security be watching you.

I'm debating my friend on this issue, and I wanted to see what other people think. So what do you think, and why? If you have articles on the topic please link them. I won't state my opinion for now.

State your opinion regardless of whether you think they have the right to do so. And this has nothing to do with whether the US or any other country should attack Iran to stop it if it is indeed developing weapons. Simply if one of the aims of Iran's nuclear program is nuclear weapons.

O, also, state yes even if you think Iran recently tried to develop them but stopped as the US national intelligence estimate said.
Although I voted NO, I couldn't blame the Iranians wanting to build nukes, especially since Bush has been salivating about attacking Iran since he came into power.

Independent of foreign pressures, I think Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want to.

Independent of foreign pressures, I think Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want to.

Probably because of foreign pressure. With the US knocking down their next door neighbor and all... Not to mention it seems pretty likely Israel has nukes.

Yes.
Iran has openly declared its wishes to wipe Israel off the map.

To answer the question in the poll, yes they want to develop them. As to the question if they are developing them, I don't know. I would say it is highly likely and probably they are, but there is no clear evidence either way to make a definitive decision.

Either way, I would keep a very close eye on Iran if I were Olmert. They have to make a clear judgment before a mushroom cloud rises from Rabin Square.

Yes.
Iran has openly declared its wishes to wipe Israel off the map.

Wipe Israel from the pages of time. We just had a massive argument in my class because an Iranian girl thought that Bush was purposely twisting Amhidjad (or however you spell that) words. He really said, wipe them from the pages of time

I wouldn't know.

Maybe, maybe not. But I know one country that isn't: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1554502640

:) Maybe there's a strategic tactic embedded in there somewhere.

I do think they want to, but I don't think they have the money or the resourses to prodoce nuclear weapons. They are, after all, in the middle of a war right now.
And, in reguard to if the have the right to, no. It's way too dangerous, even if a sane, sensible person is in control of the country, to have weapons anywhere near that magnitude at their disposal.

oh, thanks for the correction. It must have been someone else who only wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
So these guys want to wipe Israel off the map, and then erase all documentation of it ever existing in the first place (together with the Holocaust). Nice!

So they let you out of moria, eh?

Wipe Israel from the pages of time. We just had a massive argument in my class because an Iranian girl thought that Bush was purposely twisting Amhidjad (or however you spell that) words. He really said, wipe them from the pages of time

oh, thanks for the correction. It must have been someone else who only wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
So these guys want to wipe Israel off the map, and then erase all documentation of it ever existing in the first place (together with the Holocaust). Nice!

I don't think so. I think they really want nuclear power so they can sell more oil nad also maybe they see the tide turning against oil and are creating a bit of a hedge.

I'm debating my friend on this issue

Bring 'em here!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/491.gif

How is Iran threatening Israel any different from Bush threatening the sovereign nations of Syria, DPRK, Libya, Venezuela and Iran? Not to mention the 'your with us or your with the terrorists' statement, which is pretty much a blanket threat to the whole world.

Not to mention the 'your with us or your with the terrorists' statement, which is pretty much a blanket threat to the whole world.

Coupled with the "selling arms to same terrorists" theme, to boot.

Coupled with the "selling arms to same terrorists" theme, to boot.

Well if Hezbollah is the Bush claim you refer to, it was actually never true, Syria and Iran don't need to arm Hezbollah, their are already plenty of arms floating around in Lebanon, the US has made sure of that.

Well if Hezbollah is the Bush claim you refer to, it was actually never true, Syria and Iran don't need to arm Hezbollah, their are already plenty of arms floating around in Lebanon, the US has made sure of that.
It wasn't, but i appreciate you considering if that was what i meant, instead of telling me what i meant. *bows*
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/OPINION04/801190307/1068/OPINION
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_01-02/saudiarms.asp
+
http://acidbrat.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/bush-admits-%E2%80%98majority%E2%80%99-of-911-hijackers-were-saudis/
+
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them.

Right now, I think the military wants to. The political leadership wants to keep the option open.

But after the new intelligence estimate, I have changed my position and now think that while they're building the infrastructure with a clear eye on having the ability to make weapons if they want to in the future, they aren't actually racing for them right now.

Putin says no (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.russia/) and I'm guessing its in Russia's best interest to keep to that so there you go

in other news (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/05/energy.g2)

no, they don't have the right. They have done nothing to prove that they deserve it and everything to prove they do not.
Ok, I'll bite...

they don't have the right
The right? Who, then, does have the right?

They have done nothing to prove that they deserve it and everything to prove they do not.
I find myself a little bewildered by your idea that some people/nations "deserve" to possess nuclear weapons. Care to explain what you mean? Also, where do you draw the line between those who deserve to be allowed to possess such technology, and those who don't?

I'm not convinced that they are developing nuclear weaponry, but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they were. I'm not saying that I want Iran, or any other currently non-nuclear-armed country, to develop them. I'd love it if nobody had any nukes but, as has been said over and over again, that particular genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

the weight of the best evidence, as far as i know, is that they are not.

the 'logic' of ALL governments would seem to suggest to me however, that EVERY nation, and probably quite a number of ten year old boys, are all doing so, to some extent, if only in their aquious fantasies.

the nations that we already know do have them are already more then dangerous enough, especially an irresponsible u.s., that demonizes every nation that attempts to defend its land and its people from the rapacity of the corporate mafia.

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

oh, thanks for the correction. It must have been someone else who only wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

That would be Hamas :D

Well if Hezbollah is the Bush claim you refer to, it was actually never true, Syria and Iran don't need to arm Hezbollah, their are already plenty of arms floating around in Lebanon, the US has made sure of that.

Please prove that the stories of Syria and Iran are arming Hezbollah are not true please.

Are they building nuclear weapons? Probably not. They are enriching uranium which is the first step to making a bomb - or fuel for a power plant. However, the nuclear power plant at Arak is appropriate for neither research, its official purpose, or for power generation. It is a suitable site for producing plutonium.

Please prove that the stories of Syria and Iran are arming Hezbollah are not true please.

no u

to hell with who MIGHT BE DEVELOPING them. do you really trust pakistan or the u.s. (or anyone else) WITH them?

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

Well if it comes to war, why don't we get all the Americans who are willing to fight in a big line.... But I am guessing the conservatard warmongerings who seem so adamant about Iran will be somewhere to the rear...

no u

The burden of proof is on you for you are the one that made the claim.

to hell with who MIGHT BE DEVELOPING them. do you really trust pakistan or the u.s. (or anyone else) WITH them?

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

Pakistan? No
US? Yes

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 9 seconds.

Iran most likely do not have Nuclear Weapons. And as we've seen before, not having nuclear weapons makes you a prime target for invasion by Amerikkka.

The question is not having them but developing them.

Iran most likely do not have Nuclear Weapons. And as we've seen before, not having nuclear weapons makes you a prime target for invasion by Amerikkka.

to hell with who MIGHT BE DEVELOPING them. do you really trust pakistan or the u.s. (or anyone else) WITH them?

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

Out of those two?
Well, it's hard to trust either of them with Nuclear weaponry. One's ruled over by a psychotic head-case with his best interests in the military, and religious fundamentalists roaming the land being gits to one another...
And the other is Pakistan.

I don't think any country can be trusted with a nuclear weapon. Except maybe Switzerland.

The question is not having them but developing them.
I am laughing at the irony of the only nation in human history to use a nuclear weapon on people, plus making a habit of continually threatening nations with nuclear weapons, lecturing other nations on the correct use of the technology. But I guess the moral high ground bus gone and went long ago, all that the US stands on these days is a gun to the head of the world.

of course they are trying to build nuclear weapons. Mr. Ach-kill you in your sleep-minanajad would actually do it, if you translate some of his speechs that he gives in Iran they go along the lines of. "Death to the USA, Death to the Jews...etc" this guy is hitler excpet more religiously fanatical but has less militant power. He really is the Hitler of my generation

I am laughing at the irony of the only nation in human history to use a nuclear weapon on people,


62 years, 5 months and 11 days ago.

plus making a habit of continually threatening nations with nuclear weapons,

Um yea....

lecturing other nations on the correct use of the technology.

NPPT!

But I guess the moral high ground bus gone and went long ago, all that the US stands on these days is a gun to the head of the world.

Um yea...just believe whatever shit you want. I can't stop you.

Well you know if you translate some of George Bush's speeches into English they also say similar things....:eek:

*dies of laughter*

of course they are trying to build nuclear weapons. Mr. Ach-kill you in your sleep-minanajad would actually do it, if you translate some of his speechs that he gives in Iran they go along the lines of. "Death to the USA, Death to the Jews...etc" this guy is hitler excpet more religiously fanatical but has less militant power. He really is the Hitler of my generation
Well you know if you translate some of George Bush's speeches into English they also say similar things....:eek:

He really is the Hitler of my generation

Nope, nope, definitely Bush there.

Nope, nope, definitely Bush there.

:headbang:

So they let you out of moria, eh?
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/youshallnotpassnf9.jpg

plus making a habit of continually threatening nations with nuclear weapons,

Um yea....
Um yea, indeed:

Bush: 'All Options on the Table' With Iran (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8H2F2880&show_article=1)

All options on table on N. Korea nuke issue, Bush says (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2003_Feb_10/ai_97399989)

President Bush Holds Press Conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)

Q Why a policy, though, that might go after a country like Libya or Syria?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, we've got all options on the table, because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us, or our allies or friends.

Um yea, indeed:

Bush: 'All Options on the Table' With Iran (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8H2F2880&show_article=1)

*yawns*

All options on table on N. Korea nuke issue, Bush says (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2003_Feb_10/ai_97399989)

*double yawns*

President Bush Holds Press Conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)

*triple yawns*

I think they are developing Nuclear weapons.
For one reason it will reduce chances of the US invading Iran, another is they can have more political power in the world. Notice North Korea has Nuclear weapons but i haven't heard the US taking them on recently.
I don't support nuclear weapons, but when your nation has over 100 of them it's a little hypocritical to stop others.

With Pakistan out of control, Afghanistan out of control, and Iraq out of control, i.e the countries under US influence, it is only natural for Iran to pursue nukes.

-Wipe Israel from the pages of time- We just had a massive argument in my class because an Iranian girl thought that Bush gov was purposely twisting Amhidjad (or however you spell that) words. He really said, wipe them from the pages of timeBut.. who are you going to trust about AhmedJihad, about what he really said:

A little Iranian girl in your class, or "the Worlds Free Media" ???

Dont you remember how we did not go into the Iraq qagmire -5 years ago- because the US Free Media stood tall and did not became the outlet of the pentagon

*yawns*

*double yawns*

*triple yawns*
Wake up sleepy head and get with the program. The world is less safe with George Bush in control of the biggest military in the world.

Wake up sleepy head and get with the program.LOL, if only he (and the others like him) would go to sleep when its time to vote for US president. ;)

LOL, if only he (and the others like him) would go to sleep when its time to vote for US president. ;)
They already were asleep when they voted........

They already were asleep when they voted........HAHAHA...

true true

Iran is surrounded by unfriendly, nukewielding countries and has some uraniummines. They way those neighbouring countries got their nukes was a flagrant violation of the NPT with no repercussions whatsoever.

So the thought probaby did cross its governments mind, yes. They would in fact be complete idiots to not consider it. BUt they cannot do it within 5 years.

I toyed with the thought that Iran could be implying it, so they could demand an apology from the USA after it invades it on these grounds - but then I remembered how well finding no WoMDs whatsoever has served Iraq.

Wake up sleepy head and get with the program.

The fact that all options are on the table is no proof that we threatened a nation with nuclear bombs. That was a lame excuse for an argument CH and if I used that in a real debate, it would not have gone over really well.

As to being asleep. Yea I am asleep because the arguments being presented here are no more than scare mongering. Is Iran developing nukes? Cannot answer that question.

I think Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I think that because they won't open all of their facilities to 100% random inspections by the UN. If they are telling the truth open the facilities to the inspectors.

Ok, I'll bite...


The right? Who, then, does have the right?


I find myself a little bewildered by your idea that some people/nations "deserve" to possess nuclear weapons. Care to explain what you mean? Also, where do you draw the line between those who deserve to be allowed to possess such technology, and those who don't?

I'm not convinced that they are developing nuclear weaponry, but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they were. I'm not saying that I want Iran, or any other currently non-nuclear-armed country, to develop them. I'd love it if nobody had any nukes but, as has been said over and over again, that particular genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Ever since the truly devestating effects of nuclear weaponry became fully understood by the scientists, politicians, and populaces of the world following their initial use in World War II, nuclear weapons have only been obtained for one reason: deterrence.

As such, one could construe that there is such a thing as a right to own nuclear weapons, a right that one qualifies by demonstrating they will only seek the weapons for deterrence and not to actually use them. In other words, they need to prove themselves trustworthy, as all of the nations currently with such weapons have, in that they won't use them. (And before you point out the United States use, I point to the fact that the full effects were not and could not be understood without at least some use of them first, and the United States used them only because they got their hands on a functioning weapon first. Had some other nation been the first to invent a functional weapon, they would have the stigma.)

The real question is whether Iran truly wants them for deterrence or if they plan to use them. It's not a question one can answer easily.

one could construe that there is such a thing as a right to own nuclear weapons, a right that one qualifies by demonstrating they will only seek the weapons for deterrence and not to actually use them. In other words, they need to prove themselves trustworthy, as all of the nations currently with such weapons have, in that they won't use them.
It's this measure of "trustworthiness" that I find troubling. I know people who consider Pakistan and North Korea to be "untrustworthy", or at least "unworthy", to the point that they "shouldn't be allowed" to possess nuclear arms. The question stands... who quantifies this magical level of trust that allows some nations to qualify, but not others?

And before you point out the United States use, I point to the fact that the full effects were not and could not be understood without at least some use of them first, and the United States used them only because they got their hands on a functioning weapon first. Had some other nation been the first to invent a functional weapon, they would have the stigma.
I wouldn't have taken that tack. In actual fact, to the best of my knowledge, I have never made an issue of the fact that the U.S. are the only nation to have used nuclear weaponry against an enemy in time of war. My reasons for not having done so are pretty much what you've stated - that nobody (or at least nobody in a position to influence the decision to deploy them) was able to fully comprehend what it was that they were unleashing. I'm pretty certain that if the technology had been developed first (and in the right timeframe) in Germany, or in the UK, that a nuke would have been used in the European theatre of WWII.

It's this measure of "trustworthiness" that I find troubling. I know people who consider Pakistan and North Korea to be "untrustworthy", or at least "unworthy", to the point that they "shouldn't be allowed" to possess nuclear arms. The question stands... who quantifies this magical level of trust that allows some nations to qualify, but not others?

Unfortunately, like so many other things, it's qualified by who holds the most power, and that is the United States and the European Union.

Even were that not true, though, you have to really evaluate the countries involved. Pakistan is an unstable military dictatorship, and as such the nuclear weapons could possibly fall into the wrong hands, for example.


I wouldn't have taken that tack. In actual fact, to the best of my knowledge, I have never made an issue of the fact that the U.S. are the only nation to have used nuclear weaponry against an enemy in time of war. My reasons for not having done so are pretty much what you've stated - that nobody (or at least nobody in a position to influence the decision to deploy them) was able to fully comprehend what it was that they were unleashing. I'm pretty certain that if the technology had been developed first (and in the right timeframe) in Germany, or in the UK, that a nuke would have been used in the European theatre of WWII.
Indeed. Such a thing commonly happens in alternate history novels.

But I said that because most people who do argue about this tend to take that tack. I apologize for assuming you would as well.

As such, one could construe that there is such a thing as a right to own nuclear weapons, a right that one qualifies by demonstrating they will only seek the weapons for deterrence and not to actually use them.

Someting which is aptly called M.A.D.

Unfortunately, like so many other things, it's qualified by who holds the most power, and that is the United States and the European Union.

Even were that not true, though, you have to really evaluate the countries involved
Oh don't misunderstand me, I realise that it's entities such as the EU and the USA as well as the likes of Russia and China who, by dint of their political power on the global stage - whether that power be military or economic - have taken on the role of arbiters as things stand. I'm just not entirely comfortable with it.

Pakistan is an unstable military dictatorship, and as such the nuclear weapons could possibly fall into the wrong hands, for example.
A possibility, yes. It was with that sort of situation that I quoted your earlier post stating that
they need to prove themselves trustworthy, as all of the nations currently with such weapons have, in that they won't use them
A little clumsy of me, perhaps, but no matter- we're just quibbling here. Your "The real question is whether Iran truly wants them for deterrence or if they plan to use them. It's not a question one can answer easily" is the right question to ask, as I see it, and you're right, it's not an easy one to answer.

And, in closing
I said that because most people who do argue about this tend to take that tack. I apologize for assuming you would as well.
No apology required. I've seen the 'argument' made about the U.S. using the Bomb so many times that I reckon it's natural for people to assume that it's going to come up. I like to think that I'm not quite as blinkered as those who use it, time and time again, as if it should somehow negate any U.S. led policy on nuclear arms - it's just not relevant to the modern world as I see it.

Bush didn't twist his words, but whoever (can't remember off the top of my head) it was that first published it did. So the girl is right, he didn't say that.

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom" - Ahmadinejad

So it's quite different, the Soviet Union wasn't literally destroyed.

The thing is, he's probably right, too. In order for there to truly be peace for Israel and her neighbors, she has to dispense with the overly xenophobic leadership she commonly possesses.

Wipe Israel from the pages of time. We just had a massive argument in my class because an Iranian girl thought that Bush was purposely twisting Amhidjad (or however you spell that) words. He really said, wipe them from the pages of time

Bush didn't twist his words, but whoever (can't remember off the top of my head) it was that first published it did. So the girl is right, he didn't say that.

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom" - Ahmadinejad

So it's quite different, the Soviet Union wasn't literally destroyed.

The fact that all options are on the table is no proof that we threatened a nation with nuclear bombs. That was a lame excuse for an argument CH and if I used that in a real debate, it would not have gone over really well.
So nuclear weapons are not part of "ALL options" available to the US military? Give your head a shake sonny boy. :p

The US is even developing NEW nuclear weapons. I guess that is in compliance with the NPT??

As to being asleep. Yea I am asleep because the arguments being presented here are no more than scare mongering. Is Iran developing nukes?
Bush has been confrontational with Iran during his whole term of office. Bush is a warmonger and you are an apologist. Your answers are as expected.

Cannot answer that question.
Despite evidence to the contrary, Bush continues to label Iran as a nuclear threat. He also did that with Iraq. We all know the results.

Yes but Corneliu Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe out Israel with nuclear weapons, he just said that he wanted to end the Zionist occupying regime. The connection between that statement and the speculation that they are developing nuclear weapons (which has been largely debunked by the IAEA) was solely the work of a small groups of far-right groups and individuals.

So my question stands, what is the different between Ahmadinejad's statement and Bush's 'axis of evil' speech and following threatening statements? The only difference is that Bush has actually gone through with one of his threats, the invasion of Iraq, so while Ahmadinejad is probably just blowing smoke to appease the radicals, Bush is actually seriously in his overseas military ambitions, we have proof of that.

They are, after all, in the middle of a war right now.

Who are they fighting?

They're not at war with Iraq. Not officially at any rate. Same with Afghanistan. Those seem to be the only heavily troubled regions at the moment.

Yes but Corneliu Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe out Israel with nuclear weapons

Nope. He just said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. With nuclear bombs, he can very well do that. However, i do not know if he is or not for I am not privy to all the intelligence, just what everyone else is getting, from the media.

You may want to see his actual words, posted higher up on this page.

I'll stick to it. Its been debated to death here on NSG.

Nope. He just said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. With nuclear bombs, he can very well do that. However, i do not know if he is or not for I am not privy to all the intelligence, just what everyone else is getting, from the media.

You may want to see his actual words, posted higher up on this page.

Yes but Bush also threatened many nations with military action, and with nuclear weapons he can very well do that.

Um...nuclear weapons is stretching it considering what it actually takes to launch a nuclear missile or drop a bomb. I highly doubt that nuclear bombs will be unless a nation uses chemical/biological/nuclear weapons against us or our allies.

Nope. He just said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. With nuclear bombs, he can very well do that. However, i do not know if he is or not for I am not privy to all the intelligence, just what everyone else is getting, from the media.

Yes but Bush also threatened many nations with military action, and with nuclear weapons he can very well do that.

Um...nuclear weapons is stretching it considering what it actually takes to launch a nuclear missile or drop a bomb. I highly doubt that nuclear bombs will be unless a nation uses chemical/biological/nuclear weapons against us or our allies.
Well in that case Iran using them also is a big stretch, considering that the evidence that they are even producing the capacity to build them in thin on the ground.

Well in that case Iran using them also is a big stretch, considering that the evidence that they are even producing the capacity to build them in thin on the ground.

Indeed so this talk of US actually using nukes on Iran is a big stretch because of said evidence.

Indeed so this talk of US actually using nukes on Iran is a big stretch because of said evidence.

No it's not, considering they the US has them at the ready, while Iran doesn't.

No it's not, considering they the US has them at the ready, while Iran doesn't.

HAHAHA!!! You really are funny.

HAHAHA!!! You really are funny.

Anything else to say, or is that the equivalent of 'I give up'?

Indeed so this talk of US actually using nukes on Iran is a big stretch because of said evidence.
Why is it a "big stretch"?

“Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005-FY2007 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32347.pdf)

Potential adversaries and others have built hardened underground facilities to protect key assets. Conventional weapons are unable to destroy many such facilities, though opinions differ on whether nonnuclear means can disable or isolate them. Surface-burst nuclear weapons would have limited effectiveness against deeply buried facilities. In contrast, a nuclear weapon that burrows into the ground a few meters before detonating would be more effective because it would transfer much more of its energy into the ground.

Another critic, Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch of
New Mexico, was quoted as saying, “The present administration is definitely seeking to expand U.S. nuclear capabilities — while at the same time it denounces any kind of effort by others to do the same.”12

Why is it a "big stretch"?

“Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005-FY2007 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32347.pdf)

Um yea...another bad attempt at trying to make something that it isn't. What have I told you about conspiracies CH.

Are we expanding it? Sure. However, it truly means nothing when it comes to actually nuking another country.

Um yea...another bad attempt at trying to make something that it isn't. What have I told you about conspiracies CH.
Hold on a minute there chumly. I am just nailing you on your own stuff. You keep on spouting NPT, NPT, NPT when it comes to Iran, and here is your own country, expanding nuclear capabilities, yet condemning Iran......

And what are these mini nukes being designed for? Yeah that's right, for getting at "hardened" nuclear facilities, such as those in Iran.

Are we expanding it? Sure. However, it truly means nothing when it comes to actually nuking another country.
I suppose that you are one of those that like their history down and dirty? You will get two upside the head and one in the groin before you realize what happened to you? :p

Hold on a minute there chumly. I am just nailing you on your own stuff. You keep on spouting NPT, NPT, NPT when it comes to Iran, and here is your own country, expanding nuclear capabilities, yet condemning Iran......

1) Read the actual treaty. We are literally in full compliance with it.

And what are these mini nukes being designed for? Yeah that's right, for getting at "hardened" nuclear facilities, such as those in Iran.

And yet, the program was actually discontinued.

1) Read the actual treaty. We are literally in full compliance with it.
I wouldn't expect you to say anything to the contrary. You indeed are a Bush administration apologist after all:

The U.S. is violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2619)

And yet, the program was actually discontinued.
Are you sure about that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster#Development_of_bunker-busting_weapons)?

While a nuclear penetrator (the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator", or "RNEP") was never built, the DOE was allotted budget to develop it, and tests were conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Do they want to? maybe. Are they actively working on it? I don't know, maybe but more likely than not, they aren't.

Are you sure about that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster#Development_of_bunker-busting_weapons)?

was never built

Thank you :D

was never built

Thank you :D
I guess that is a large part of your problem.....you read/hear what you want to read/hear and disregard the rest. :eek:

I guess that is a large part of your problem.....you read/hear what you want to read/hear and disregard the rest. :eek:

Either that or I am not in the market for Conspiracy theories.

Either that or I am not in the market for Conspiracy theories.
What conspiracy theories? When confronted by facts, you tend to bounce back with rhetoric, such as above.

Here is yet more examples of the US violating the NPT, and/or intent to violate the NPT:

How the West undermines nuclear non-proliferation (http://www.igloo.org/disarmingconflict/howthewe)

US Nuclear Hypocrisy: Bad for the US, Bad for the World (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0529-29.htm)

The US's nuclear cave-in (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC04Df03.html)

The President's Indian Fantasy (http://www.slate.com/id/2137105/)

US-Pakistan F-16 deal sparks controversy (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=16395)

Ok so tell me what article they are violating. I'm dying to know.

Not that I want to interrupt you two when you seem to be having such fun, but I found this amusing given your earlier post that consisted of yawning at another poster's point.

Actually...he had no point.

That was a lame excuse for an argument CH and if I used that in a real debate, it would not have gone over really well.

Not that I want to interrupt you two when you seem to be having such fun, but I found this amusing given your earlier post that consisted of yawning at another poster's point.

Actually...he had no point.

He quite clearly did. But anyway, not hugely important, just something I found a bit amusing. :)

Actually...he had no point.he had, you may refuse to accept the fact that he had a point.. but refusing "to see" a fact does not make it disappear.

and like Ifreann says, its kind-of amusing. ;)

I'm an economcs graduate with a deep interest in the Mid East and I'd have to say probably not, but even if they are, despite their threats they'll never be use.And why not? Because Israel and America would attack them. See the concept of Mutuallly Assured Destruction (MAD) from the Cold war.

I'm an economcs graduate with a deep interest in the Mid East and I'd have to say probably not, but even if they are, despite their threats they'll never be use.And why not? Because Israel and America would attack them. See the concept of Mutuallly Assured Destruction (MAD) from the Cold war.

A lot of people are of the opinion that MAD isn't an effective detterent against a nutjob.

I think they probably are trying. And no, they don't have the right. They have done nothing to prove that they deserve it and everything to prove they do not.

Who does have the right to possess something designed purely to kill many people. A nuclear weapon is designed to kill huge numbers of people indiscriminately. Children will have their eyes burnt out, babies will be burned instantly, buildings will be blown down by the shock, killing thousands.

No-one has the right to commit such a blatantly appalling genocide. No matter how bad a government, nothing justifies exacting that type of punishment on it's civilians.

From the bone-headedness of your statement, I'm assuming that you've been brained-washed by Fox News. America's War of Terror has proven them to be one of the nations least deserving of nukes, if anyone were to have them, which I believe they shouldn't. While I would feel uncomfortable with Iran having nukes, the idea of the world's biggest corporate warmongering bully of a nation having them frightens me more. Why should Iran be bullied by America's nuclear threat? If America have the right to have the passive threat of civilian mass-murder, so does everyone. Only mutually assured destruction can save us from nuclear war now that people have nukes.

No-one should have the right to commit such an act, but how can the gun-toting 'Land of the Free' morally deny anyone else's right to them?

Ok so tell me what article they are violating. I'm dying to know.
Read the articles....they give the answers.

However, if you are lazy, you can start with Article 1 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm):

Then you might want to check out:

UN Security Council Resolution 1172 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/158/60/PDF/N9815860.pdf?OpenElement)

And so on and so forth. :D

he had, you may refuse to accept the fact that he had a point.. but refusing "to see" a fact does not make it disappear.

and like Ifreann says, its kind-of amusing. ;)
Actually, I think it is kinda sad. He loves to rebuke fact with rhetoric, especially when he knows that he is dead wrong.

I'm debating my friend on this issue, and I wanted to see what other people think. So what do you think, and why? If you have articles on the topic please link them. I won't state my opinion for now.

State your opinion regardless of whether you think they have the right to do so. And this has nothing to do with whether the US or any other country should attack Iran to stop it if it is indeed developing weapons. Simply if one of the aims of Iran's nuclear program is nuclear weapons.

O, also, state yes even if you think Iran recently tried to develop them but stopped as the US national intelligence estimate said.

...Next question?

If you voted yes, you are uninformed, an idiot, or both.

I don't know about Iran, but I certainly am developing nuclear weapons in my shed.