Iran's Nuclear Program

meditraitor

Redplanet wrote:

What stated policy is this?
What aggression has Iran done toward other states?
I can't think of anytime Iran invaded another country, unlike some of our so-called "allies".

Iran has a history of invading other countries, just cant seem to think of one:D im sure they did, maybe i've just been brainwashed by the american media to think such a thing

I really cant see a USA led force invading Iran, the iraq war would be pale into insignificance compared to the loses the "Allies" would suffer if they did such a thing. consider the population first
68,000,000
If only 10% of these want to protect their homeland from foreign aggressors only interested in there mineral wealth that would be 6.8 million bad boys looking for a target, I dont care what anyone says even the almighting usa army would be in serious trouble.
So what are they going to do, drop a heap of Daisy cutters on the targets killing thousands of citzens or will they listen to Isreal and nuke them(more likely).

Another target for the bully and the little snivelling sidekick whispering in his ear.

Then after that who is next-syria, jordan,

Logos

Red Planet I'm not sure where you have been over the past couple of months. Check the link for some of the Iranian President's recent statements about a near neighbour. Not to mention Iranian support for at least two well known militant terrorist groups operating in the middle east. Bear in mind that I have no personal links with any of these countries whatsoever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4912198.stm

But this is a diversion. There is the usual 'loony' left mutterings here about the fact that no country should have nuclear weapons and that the US is protecting economic interests and not lives. These statements ignore the reality of the world in which we live and are not helpful. I do not advocate the US or any other country should attack anyone. But I do think people (and particularly Irish people) should not forget the bigger security framework picture (dominated by the US) of which we are a part and owe much of our current economic success to.

There really is no such thing as a 'just war'. I accept that. And if action is taken against Iran let us not fool ourselves into believing that it would be for 'moral' reasons. All interests need to be protected and if that means doing the difficult thing (and perhaps the seemingly hypocritical thing in some peoples eyes) then so be it. It is in nobody's interests for Iran or anyone to obtain nuclear weapons but the reality is that they do exist. North Korea is believed to have nuclear weapons but the regime uses them as bargaining chips for food aid. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and an active border dispute. But they would appear to be reasonable people and have developed their own version of the cold war.

Iran, on the other hand, is a number of years away from developing weapons and as a revolutionary regime with a strong belief in an apocalyptic strain of Islam I would think that if there is any country nobody wants to posess nuclear weapons, they are it. By the way don't mind the Russians, they have a vested economic interest as they build nuclear facilities for Iran.

And yet having Nuclear capabilities tends to level the playing field because there is an awful fear of the reprisals from using nukes. Lets be realistic, the only type of organisation thats likely to use Nukes, would be a "terrorist" or organisation thats hard to trace. No actual nation is likely to use nukes, because it opens themselves to being retalitated by just about every western nation.

its funny but it was only when both India & Pakhistan both got nukes, that they finally came to talk about peace, simply because the alternative was way too awful to comprehend. When N.Korea started saying they had Nuclear capabilities, suddenly the US, and other nations started dealing with them on an equal level, and moved away from the Sabre rattling.

Iran, on the other hand, is a number of years away from developing weapons and as a revolutionary regime with a strong belief in an apocalyptic strain of Islam I would think that if there is any country nobody wants to posess nuclear weapons, they are it. By the way don't mind the Russians, they have a vested economic interest as they build nuclear facilities for Iran.

Whats interesting is that Iran actually allows more freedoms to their own people than other arab countries like Saudi Arabia. Iran hasn't been any wars recently, and while their leaders are foaming at the mouth, we've seen similiar rhethoric coming from Bush & his Axis of Evil. Iran has a decent military as things stand at the moment, and they would have been well capable of conducting a conventional war against their neighbours if they chose.

The problem with this, is that we've all been hit by western propaganda about the leaders of these arab countries. We're taught that they're unreasonable, sun touched (in the head), and they're out to destroy us all. Strange that Saddam only wanted to continue his "posh" lifestyle, and didn't make any military moves past the 1st Gulf war.

Could it be that Iran will achieve its aim of having nuclear weapons, and seek the same level of negotiational power that N.Korea has with the US? That they won't use the actual nukes, because they know that they'll be obliterated the moment they do....?

RedPlanet

I agree with Klaz. People here are blinkered by American and British propaganda.
The Iranians aren't threatening anybody (bar strong rhetoric at Israel but sure, they pretty well reap what they sow); their not making aggressive military manoevres and mostly minding their own business. Fair play to them if they want to pursue alternative fuels.

And what is Christianity and the second coming of Christ if not apocalyptic?
Think about what George Bush apparently believes in, sure doesn't "god" speak to him?

meditraitor

meditraitor wrote:

So what are they going to do, drop a heap of Daisy cutters on the targets killing thousands of citzens or will they listen to Isreal and nuke them(more likely)

Should the US use any nukes, watch their allies disappear, and quite likely the loss of any political influence that they currently have. No Nation will want to see any nukes going off, and if the US does it once, the belief that they may do so again, to another nation will prevent them from supporting US interests.

Nukes are the ultimate weapon to stop a war. Simply because they won't be used. T o do so would alienate the user, create massive sympathy for the target, and likely create the situation whereby the User would be forced to dsimantle their nuclear capabailities.

The US would not escape the wrath of the world. Being a superpower only gives so much leeway.

growler

Deleted User wrote:

And yet having Nuclear capabilities tends to level the playing field because there is an awful fear of the reprisals from using nukes. Lets be realistic, the only type of organisation thats likely to use Nukes, would be a "terrorist" or organisation thats hard to trace. No actual nation is likely to use nukes, because it opens themselves to being retalitated by just about every western nation.



Whats interesting is that Iran actually allows more freedoms to their own people than other arab countries like Saudi Arabia.

The mutual deterrant argument works if one is willing to believe that the Iranian regime is "sane" personally I don't and think that given the right circumstances they would be capable of sending themselves to Paradise on a mushroom cloud of glory and taking whoever they can with them in the name of Islam.

I also don't think it unlikely that a regime that has recruited 40,000 suicide bombers for overseas operations is worth trusting with a nuke in case they decide to test their new toys in a western state.

Iran might be a little more free than Saudi but since how Islamic a state is seems to be measured by how un-westernised it is , competition for the "Most Islamic State 2006 " seems to be heating up see here

Some interesting anlaysis of possible military options here

For as long as I've been on boards and other bbs, i've been seeing posts about how Israel mistreats palestine, and how it was the aggressor in the region. I'm not going to argue about that.

However, if you were to believe all the propaganda thats come out about Israel over the years, you'd place Israel in the same boat as iran. How they treat their Arab citizens, the dealings with other arab nations, hardline political beliefs, settlement issues etc. And religiously speaking Jewish people are probably as ferverent as the Arabs themselves. All of which would point to the same kind of actions that Iran has been displaying.

And yet, they've had nuclear capabilities for decades. They haven't used them.

Because what we hear on the media, from our governments, from the Internet etc, doesn't always reflect the reality. The real leader of Iran may play with fluffy rabbits, and love the environment. His public persona reflects the Arab sentiment. It doesn't necessarily reflect what he's actually going to do.

Logos

Thank you for all your recent points. If I may summarize them briefly:

1) Nuclear weapons level the playing field somehow and lets a country/dictatorship stand up to the West.
2) Nobody would really use them anyway unless they were mad.
3) Iran is a more liberal than 'other arab countries' (thanks Klaz).
4) It's all just US/UK propaganda...lets just go for a few pints and forget it (sorry paraphrasing there).
5) The US is most likely to strike first and would suffer global wrath.
6) Israel (if you believe the propaganda) is actually sort of like Iran.

Hmmm. My thoughts on these-

1) The way to level the playing field is through economic and social development. The relative cost of obtaining 'nukes' is enormous, and far from improving the security of poorer nations, it simply makes the world a riskier place.
2) Well lets hope we are not relying on an Iranian president to prove this assumption correct.
3) Iran is not actually an arab country (although it is a muslim one). Yes I think the social conditions in some arab countries which are 'allies' of the West are appalling. But that's life.
4) Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Still the impact of Iran's ambitions is being felt at petrol stations all over Ireland so there must be something to it all???
5) Probably true! But then again if you were bordered by 2 oceans, Canada and Mexico would you really care?
6) There is more than a grain of truth in this one but lets be realistic...a lot has happened since 1948 and posession is 9/10's of the law is it not?

Am I being a bit cynical?

Akrasia

samb wrote:

I heard on the radio that it would probably be the most appropriate response (if a military response is needed, the big question) because the enrichment etc is carried out underground and they could use small (well smallish) nuclear bombs to get at them. Otherwise a proper invasion would be necessary which would cause much more bloodshed on both sides. If these underground facilities are in lowly populated areas then the casualties would be minimal enough. They could even warn them for evacuation purposes.

this kind of (sorry about the offense) Idiotic thinking is going to end up killing millions of people.

Do you honestly think, even for one second, that the Iranian people and the Islamic world will stand back and allow america to Nuke their country?

You really have no clue do you.

Akrasia

Logos wrote:

There really is no such thing as a 'just war'. I accept that.

Not only do you accept it, You seem to support the idea of unjust wars (at least according to everything you have written here)
If no war is a just war, then there should be no war. If you believe no war is justified, then you should be the amongst the most ardent anti war activists, otherwise you're just another vicious cowardly war monger.

Logos

No, in fairness to Samb I think he/she was only repeating a rather cold analysis of the military options. You see this is how potentially serious this situation is. Now think about the reverse case. What happens if Iran is encouraged to develop nuclear weapons through the apathy of the West? How far must we trust them to control their own power? How much faith can we place in them to respect our way of life?

Unfortunately we are at the crossroads, and the time for action may well be now. Do our interests lie with China? No. Russia? Definitely not. The Islamic world? Only if they can respect our reality. It is only with the US that in broad terms Europe can find common cause. To castigate the americans for managing risk is a complete failure on the part of us secure europeans who should know better.

Logos

Akrasia wrote:

Not only do you accept it, You seem to support the idea of unjust wars (at least according to everything you have written here)
If no war is a just war, then there should be no war. If you believe no war is justified, then you should be the amongst the most ardent anti war activists, otherwise you're just another vicious cowardly war monger.

No I do not think any war can be classed as 'just' for a very good reason. Because concepts of 'justness' are subjective - it means that there is no objective way to define the 'justness' of a war, therefore either all wars are 'just' or none are 'just'. Without a collective - universally agreed - idea of what constitutes 'justness' then it becomes a redundant way of assessing conflict. When I say no wars are 'just' I mean it in the same sense that money (or wild animals) are not just. It is an amoral concept. Wars happen for many reasons - most of which are economic in origin.

RedPlanet

Logos you keep telling us that Iran is some sort of threat but i just dont see it.
Maybe at a stretch, they're a threat to Israel, but good riddance to em.
Let the 2 of them fight it out amongst themselves.
We don't get our oil from Israel, but we DO get our oil from the ME and Iran is an important participant there.

What do we get from Israel that's so bloody important?
Imported strawberries? Big deal.

You should read through that link posted earlier:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/788/special.htm

Iran's influence stretches beyond it's geographic borders.
Bombing Iran would probably be a huge mistake, it's crazy talk.
And just look at who's talking about it -- the idiot Bush bringing peace and democracy to the world huh?
Where are those WMD's in Iraq again?

Logos

Logos wrote:

What happens if Iran is encouraged to develop nuclear weapons through the apathy of the West? How far must we trust them to control their own power? How much faith can we place in them to respect our way of life?

I think this is part of the problem we're facing these days. Can we trust other countries to respect our way of life, when we have problems respecting other countries own traditions. We (Westerners) tend to look at eastern countries and try to apply our own morals, opinions, & laws when interpreting their cultures or societies. We're naturally right, since we uphold freedoms and the cause of Right. Remember, we're the knights in shiny armour bring peace, democracy & prosperity to everyone.

The real question though is how can we expect them to respect our lives, when we do very little to respect theirs......

Can we trust them to control their power? Strange, since Iraq I've been having problems trusting America with the power it holds..... If I'm having problems, can you imagine what the people from those eastern nations are thinking about western power? After all, Europe has had its own problems (Kosovo for example), and the US has dabbled with Guantanamo Bay. Who are we to judge them when we haven't been doing all that good a job ourselves.

Logos wrote:

Unfortunately we are at the crossroads, and the time for action may well be now. Do our interests lie with China? No. Russia? Definitely not. The Islamic world? Only if they can respect our reality. It is only with the US that in broad terms Europe can find common cause. To castigate the americans for managing risk is a complete failure on the part of us secure europeans who should know better

We've already hit the "time of action". The US invaded Afghanistan (which I can understand, but eastern countries may have different feelins on the matter). Then Iraq happened with the Coalition, and since then the world is constantly talking about "action". Iran is just the new topic of whether we should be invading other soverign nation. And despite our dislike of how they administer their country, we are talking about invading them. Are we really any different to Saddam invading Kuwait? I'm finding it more difficult to say that we're not.

The problem is that Bush is a bull in a china shop (Remember his Axis of Evil media statements). Where is the America that used its power in a subtle manner? Sure they used force, but almost in a surgical manner. Since WW2, we had 3-4 wars where America was involved... Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, any more? Whereas in the last 5 years we're talking about the US invading two nations, and looking to do more to a third. This is the era of action, and I'm wondering where the political skill of the US has gone.

Europe has seen its fair share of war. Maybe not for this generation, but its very much referred to in our history to various degrees. The US on the other hand has only had a civil war on its shores. Its history shows wars are fought abroad, where its civilians aren't harmed. Europeans know that once war is started, its own civilians will start dying. Naturally there's a hesitancy about that, and frankly I'm glad there is.

I have seen no valid reason for the invasion of Iraq to date. None at all. The only realistic reason is the securing of oil reserves. And this was supposed to be a "just" war. Do you really want Europe to do the same, and commit the same mistakes? I'd prefer to see Europe make its moves when its got some actual evidence, rather than invading a country on a whim.

Honestly considering the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly the future Iraq, I can't see much to applaud the West in its decisions to date.

Rock Climber

RedPlanet wrote:

Logos you keep telling us that Iran is some sort of threat but i just dont see it.

They have a child president that keeps rhetoricising about anihilating millions of jews and denies the holocaust and you dont see him as a threat...
spectacles man spectacles...

Maybe at a stretch, they're a threat to Israel, but good riddance to em.

Ah so you agree with mass murder- uhm ok there goes all your credibility so.

Iran's influence stretches beyond it's geographic borders.
Bombing Iran would probably be a huge mistake, it's crazy talk.
And just look at who's talking about it -- the idiot Bush bringing peace and democracy to the world huh?
Where are those WMD's in Iraq again?

Thats a bit of a hypocrital stance given what you've just suggested is ok to be done to Israel-but hey grasping any credibility in your post is kind of difficult anyway when your start out point is Blow up Israel.

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote:

They have a child president that keeps rhetoricising about anihilating millions of jews and denies the holocaust and you dont see him as a threat...

look, if they really want to destroy isreal, why havent they invaded them yet? They have enough military capability to give Isreal a really tough fight.
Is it because Isreal have Nukes and Iran don't? So this means that Iran won't invade Isreal because they don't want to be annhialated. Right?

But the thing is, Even if iran develops a nuclear weapon, any strike against Isreal will be met with the same response. Iran will be wiped off the map.

So if they're not stupid enough to invade Isreal now, why would they be stupid enough to fire nukes at Isreal? Nuclear weapons can only exist as a deterrent (except when you're a big boy like america who is delusional enough to believe that they can fire a 'small' nuclear weapon at their enemy and there won't be any negative consequences.

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote:

look, if they really want to destroy isreal, why havent they invaded them yet?

Well yer man was only elected the other day[/QUOTE]
But the thing is, Even if iran develops a nuclear weapon, any strike against Isreal will be met with the same response. Iran will be wiped off the map.[/QUOTE] The point is, their pres is a looney toons job.I wouldnt trust him with nukes. Kim sometimes ill is a different kettle of fish, he's too fond of his position to be fire-ing nukes.The nukes keep him where he is.
Irans child pres though is a worse fruit cake as he gives off the air of a lad that would fire them as it would be Gods will you see.
thats the impression I get from his rhetoric.

Logos

Akrasia wrote:

[look, if they really want to destroy isreal, why havent they invaded them yet? They have enough military capability to give Isreal a really tough fight. Is it because Isreal have Nukes and Iran don't? So this means that Iran won't invade Isreal because they don't want to be annhialated. Right?

I think we need to re focus on the issue here. Iran does not currently posess nuclear weapons to the best of anyone's knowledge. The point being discussed is what steps (if any) the West, the US - or whoever - should take to help Iran not proceed down the ultimately self defeating path of nuclear weapons. There are a number of people posting here who seem to suggest that it is Iran's right to 'defend itself' against US or other external aggression by developing nuclear weapons. This is a bogus argument because actually invading Iran is simply not an option - therefore who does Iran need this 'defense' against? It took the big 5 almost 50 years to realise that in the long run a nuclear war is unwinnable. Let us not allow Iran to challenge the veracity of this hard learned lesson. Iran's best defense is its oil and the chance to change its society for the better.

There are some unsound people in power in Iran who profess genocidal threats against other nations. Regardless of the sins of the past (of all sides) it would be the worst sin of all to allow Iran make the ultimate mistake. Peace may come cheaply - or at a terrible price for the people of Iran. Hopefully sense will prevail there, but if it does not then the world must brace for the consequences.

If the only nation prepared to take the required action is the US then the judgement of the people of the world will be the price that americans must pay for their actions and how they handle this crisis. The last time a US president contemplated nuclear strikes was Nixon against North Vietnam. Clearly this did not happen so remember it is just an option but one the free world needs at its disposal.

bonkey

Rock Climber wrote:

Well yer man was only elected the other day

Uh huh.

Funny how the Americans wrote off his predecessor as a figurehead for the real power, but all of a sudden this guy (who has even less direct power) is the nutjob running the country!

Was there a powershift the world missed?

jc

Logos

bonkey wrote:

Funny how the Americans wrote off his predecessor as a figurehead for the real power, but all of a sudden this guy (who has even less direct power) is the nutjob running the country!

Sorry, what exactly is your point here? The last president (Khatami) was a reformer but he failed to make progress and lost the popular vote to Ahmadinejad who more or less represents the poor and more hardline elements of society. He is a militant revolutionary who also appears to be a man of his word. If he makes threats then you can assume the cabinet and the military are behind him.

bonkey

Logos wrote:

It took the big 5 almost 50 years to realise that in the long run a nuclear war is unwinnable.

And yet the biggest of the 5 refuses to take the nuclear option off the table against a non-nuclear nation. Have they unlearned their lesson? Or can we assume that at least some of their stance is bluster?

Let us not allow Iran to challenge the veracity of this hard learned lesson. Iran's best defense is its oil and the chance to change its society for the better.

In a world of declining oil reserves, Iran's best defense may ironically be its uranium mines.

There are some unsound people in power in Iran who profess genocidal threats against other nations.

Genocidal wishes, you mean. Bush has made comments to the effect that tyranny has no place in this world. Does this mean he's actually threatening the lives/nations of every tyrannical leader?

And let us not forget the resources currently at Iran's disposal, including chemical agents. Why not supply terrorists with these and allow them to be used genocidally against Israel? Why not use them directly themselves?

Regardless of the sins of the past (of all sides) it would be the worst sin of all to allow Iran make the ultimate mistake.

So allow Iran to enrich to generation-quality levels, with complete IAEA oversight, and deal with the threat of the ultimate mistake if htey ever show signs of as much as not playing fair to said agreement.

To be fair - thats pretty much all they've asked for ever since they came clean and decided to actually own up to their nuclear program. Is the world going to send signals now that owning up to secrecy and offering to play fair will mean being punished and denied the rights that such openness is supposed to convey?

Peace may come cheaply - or at a terrible price for the people of Iran.

Well yes. But thats true regardless of which way you see things.

If the only nation prepared to take the required action is the US

Ah, so you don't think they've learned that nuclear war is unwinnable. Or are we to believe that nuclear strikes against non-nuclear nations don't count, cause it doesn't send any signals to anyone that nuclear weapons are now fair game to use in the protection of one's own interests???

so remember it is just an option but one the free world needs at its disposal.

I don't see how that logic follows. Why do we need it? What possible benefit do we get from having an option the use of which leads - by your own admission - to an unwinnable war?

jc

bonkey

Logos wrote:

Sorry, what exactly is your point here?

My point is that either the President does or does not have power. That shouldn't change with the President. If it does, then its not really the President who has power, but those (i.e. the ruling clergy that the US attributed power to under the previous guy) who decide which powers he is allowed have....and it is their genocidal tendencies (or otherwise) which are the issue.

So either its not a question of whether or not the current guy is genocidal, but rather first a question of whether or not such tendencies matter in the slightest. If the ruling clergy will let him incite as much as he likes, but will stop him pulling the trigger (should Iran ever acquire nuclear weapons), then his genocidal tendencies matter not a whit.

If, on the other hand, we wish to assert that the clergy are not the power, then implicit in that assertion is the fact that the US will misrepresent reality in order to further their own aims. If this is the case, then their assurance that this guy is a nut who needs to be dealt with carries little weight as we know they may still be lying to us because it suits their position.

jc

Dirk Gently

Logos wrote:

There is the usual 'loony' left mutterings here about the fact that no country should have nuclear weapons and that the US is protecting economic interests and not lives. These statements ignore the reality of the world in which we live and are not helpful.

In all fairness to dismiss nuclear disarmament as a Looney lefty fantasy is a cop out. There is a lot of people and organisations across the political spectrum that supports this idea. Some people when faced with a situation will when trying to find a solution limit their responses only to the most likely course of action.

Just because a course of action is likely doesn't mean it is right.
Getting rid of all nuclear weapons is not a likely course of action, but it is still the right course of action. Many countries would sign up, some under pressure from mass movements of people and some out of relief at not needing them anymore. A huge barrier to getting rid of all nukes has to be said is the U.S. who continue to refuse to sign any agreements anytime they are proposed.

Also the comment about the U.S. protecting its economic interests and my opinion that the U.S. uses human rights and talk of a threat to its security only as an excuse to justify war still stand. Again I don't think this can be dismissed as a Looney left idea and is actually the reality of what is happening.

You may see nuclear disarmament and comments about U.S. foreign policy as been Looney left ideas but that’s because we live in a world dominated by the Looney right and of course these ideas seem absurd in the context of how the looney right behaves.

Rock Climber

bonkey wrote:

Uh huh.

Funny how the Americans wrote off his predecessor as a figurehead for the real power, but all of a sudden this guy (who has even less direct power) is the nutjob running the country!

Was there a powershift the world missed?

jc

Ah Lad,its not just the Americans that think this guy is not the type of loon to be having nukes.It would be nice to think that Iran could develop Nuke power plants and leave it at that but my guts and probably most everybody elses is that they want more than that.

This poster says no thanks, theres enough nut jobs with them.The more nut jobs have them, then statistically the more chance one of the nut jobs will live up to their title.
So lets be in favour of non proliferation with a side salad of suspicion towards those who rhetoricise the down fall of a few million people.
Personally I'm suspicious of their intent.

They're not getting near my sister thats for sure

Manic Moran

look, if they really want to destroy isreal, why havent they invaded them yet? They have enough military capability to give Isreal a really tough fight.

One immediate thought is the fact that there are a couple of countries between Iran and Israel which might object to Iranian tanks crossing over their land.

NTM

Akrasia

Logos wrote:

I think we need to re focus on the issue here. Iran does not currently posess nuclear weapons to the best of anyone's knowledge. The point being discussed is what steps (if any) the West, the US - or whoever - should take to help Iran not proceed down the ultimately self defeating path of nuclear weapons. There are a number of people posting here who seem to suggest that it is Iran's right to 'defend itself' against US or other external aggression by developing nuclear weapons

You're misunderstanding what my point is (and probably the point of others on here)

I'm not asserting Iran's right to have nuclear weapons. I don't think anyone has that right. The best way to stop iran from wanting to develop nuclear weapons is to stop threatening them all the time. If you threaten someone with military strikes, you're only going to encourage them to build up their defensive capabilities.

Attacking Iran, in any way, nuclear, invasion, or conventional air strikes will only make the iranian leadership more determined to achieve a nuclear deterrant.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

The best way to stop iran from wanting to develop nuclear weapons is to stop threatening them all the time. If you threaten someone with military strikes, you're only going to encourage them to build up their defensive capabilities.

Attacking Iran, in any way, nuclear, invasion, or conventional air strikes will only make the iranian leadership more determined to achieve a nuclear deterrant.

I'd agree with that.
I'd also not trust Iran though as far as I'd throw them as I reckon they do want to develop the weapons regardless of whether the rest of the World and the US goes all Dali Lama.
At this stage,they're not for turning I'd say so choices are limited.
War is definitely not a choice I'd agree with.

Parsley

Can someone please explain why military action against Iran on the basis it may be developing nuclear weapons can be justified, given:


a) the United States and Britain have thousands upon thousands of nukes;
b)India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa have all developed nuclear weapons without international authorisation- and all commit rights abuses on par with Iran.

No one should have nuclear weapons- but if anyone does, then Iran has more reason to posess them than, say France, Britain and America, which are surrounded by allies and are armed to the teeth. Two countries bordering on Iran have been recently invaded with huge loss of life (40 to 200,000 in Iraq, c. 27,000 in Afghanistan) by countries hostile to Iran, and the region is generally unstable.

samb

Akrasia wrote:

this kind of (sorry about the offense) Idiotic thinking is going to end up killing millions of people.

Do you honestly think, even for one second, that the Iranian people and the Islamic world will stand back and allow america to Nuke their country?

You really have no clue do you.

Am I in favour of military action? Would I support such action? NO NO NO...you are idiotic for jumping to such conclusions. All I was saying was that this would be the most effective way of carrying out military action in terms of human casualties. Note ''if a military response is needed, the big question''. I did not ascert an opinion on this question.
I think for many seconds that if america chose to Nuke Iran (with targeted small nukes or a full scale attack) that Iran could do little about it. However as someone has already said THANKFULLY any nuclear attack would cause way to much political trouble for the US.

samb

Akrasia wrote:

Attacking Iran, in any way, nuclear, invasion, or conventional air strikes will only make the iranian leadership more determined to achieve a nuclear deterrant.

Not if you achieve regime change. They will be dead or in jail, not determined.

Now don't jump to conclusions Akrasia........