Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?

Einhard

wes wrote: »

Way to miss the pont I was making. The West ignores facts when it doesn't suit them, and we have seen this happen multiple times in the past. Also, plenty of nation involved in the Iraq debacle, with plenty of lies being told there, so let not pretend we haven't seen this thing before.


Plenty of nations colluded in the war of aggression against Iraq, so pefectly possible for this war mongering to repeat itself.

France and Germany were resolutely opposed to the war in Iraq. So were many other European nations. And yet, you want us to believe that now, not only are they not opposed to war against Iran, but are actively supportive of it??

Come on wes.

When, he says it in a Fatwa, its rather different. As the West loves to point out they are Religous regime, so they tend to take such thing very seriously. So you can't have it both ways imho, either they take this relgious stuff seriously or they don't.

Ye see wes, I don't hold your rather naive view that religious leaders are always totally principled when it comes to their own proclamations.

I would have thought that, after the abuse scandals of the Catholic Church here in Ireland and elsewhere, that people would be a tad more cynical when it comes to the prognostications of religious leaders. Obviously not though. All it takes is a religious leader (who also happens to be a political leader) to say something, and that makes it through in your mind. Forgive me if I don't share your convictions on this...

The only evidence comes from pre-2003, and even the US inteligence estimate have said they don't have an active program. Seems to me that a lot of people like to ignore that fact, like your doing as it doesn't suit you.

Doesn't suit me? Dunno what you're talking about there. I have no stake in the matter. As I stated, I don't believe military means should be used to prevent Iran getting the weapons, and I've condemned Isreali attacks on Iranian scientists, so if this is an attempt to paint me as somehow advocating war then it's an idiotic attempt and entirely transparent for what it really is.

Simply put there is no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. There may have been one pre-2003, but none right now. Sorry, but this is just the same old war mongering rhetoric we see time and again and nothing more. I see no reason why any one would believe the exact same lies again.

Again...you believe that ALL 27 member states of the European Union are colluding in an effort to take military actions against Iran?

That those members have taken the economic risk of suspending imports of Iranian oil, not because they honestly believe that Iran is pursuing weaponisation, but because they want to see Iran invaded?

Come on wes, this is sinking deeper and deeper into CT territory. Portugal and Ireland and Latvia and Slovenia and Cyprus are all conspiring in this grand plan to invade Iran, or at least see her invaded?

I'm sorry to say, but that's crazy.

Also, I notice a common thread in your rebuttals- everyone who speaks against Iran gaining nuclear weapons has a war mongering agenda. Nice try, but it's slightly ironic that those supportive of nuclear profliferation should use that tag against those of us who'd like to see the spread of such weapons limited.

AngryBollix wrote: »

In an ideal world nuclear weapons would not be a threat to anyone. However, we dont live in an ideal world. If the technology and will exists to create nuclear weapons then they will be created and stockpiled.

And as I said, steps should be taken to prevent the spread of such weapons. I'm not talking about military steps, but it's entirely reasonable that nations have the right to sanction other nations who are pursuing such weapons in breach of their international obligations.

Its not really the pursuit of nuclear weapons hat we should be worried about. Its their use. Whe the use of them becomes a realistic proposition then its time to worry

The more weapons there are the more likely it is that they'll be used.

Einhard

AngryBollix wrote: »

Shouldnt fukushima and chernobyl serves as reminders to everyone the power of what can happen?

No one had died because of Fukushima, and there was very little damage to human health because of Chernobyl. That's not my opinion but that of the UN. Both incidents were blown entirely out of proportion by the media and anti-nuclear activists.

Eric Cartman

Nuclear weapons shouldnt be had by anybody , but in a world where isreal and the US have them then you need some balance in the world

conorhal

AngryBollix wrote: »

How would the taliban gain access to the pakistani nuclear stockpile?

In the long term? Probably by getting elected.

In the short term however.....
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-08-11/pakistan/28160861_1_shaun-gregory-pakistan-nuclear-sites-nuclear-weapons

"Pakistan's nuclear facilities have already been attacked at least thrice by its home-grown extremists and terrorists in little reported incidents over the last two years..."

Einhard

Just a hypothetical, though not entirely unlikely, scenario.

Iran develops a nuclear weapon. She takes major offence to some Western policy of containment involving sanctions and trade embargoes (entirely legal in this instance). She closes the Straits of Hormuz. The Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are outraged but can't do anything because Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. America decides to intervene, not to attack Iran, but to clear the straits. Iran responds that if America intervenes, she will deploy her nuclear arsenal.

This is not an impossible scenario. Unlikely perhaps, but not at all implausible. We have a situation in which a nuclear armed Iran holds the world hostage through blocking the straits of Hormuz. And threatens nuclear retaliation should anyone attempt to stop her.

What happens next? Does the world capitulate? Does America proceed anyway and risk nuclear war? What of the Gulf States held hostage by a nuclear armeed neighbour?

You see, these are the kind of potentialities that those who clamour for a nuclear armed Iran fail to consider. The West and Israel don't want Iran to have weapons, ergo Iran should have weapons, and potential consequences be damned.

Freddie59

AngryBollix wrote: »

Why?

Which country is the only one to ever use them?

Yep, ya got me. The USA.:rolleyes: As often said before, I'll take them ahead of Ahmedinejad and his bully-boys any day of the week. A bunch of thugs with AK47s.

No way should these cnuts be allowed to proceed. Ever.

Freddie59

Einhard wrote: »

Just a hypothetical, though not entirely unlikely, scenario.

Iran develops a nuclear weapon. She takes major offence to some Western policy of containment involving sanctions and trade embargoes (entirely legal in this instance). She closes the Straits of Hormuz. The Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are outraged but can't do anything because Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. America decides to intervene, not to attack Iran, but to clear the straits. Iran responds that if America intervenes, she will deploy her nuclear arsenal.

This is not an impossible scenario. Unlikely perhaps, but not at all implausible. We have a situation in which a nuclear armed Iran holds the world hostage through blocking the straits of Hormuz. And threatens nuclear retaliation should anyone attempt to stop her.

What happens next? Does the world capitulate? Does America proceed anyway and risk nuclear war? What of the Gulf States held hostage by a nuclear armeed neighbour?

You see, these are the kind of potentialities that those who clamour for a nuclear armed Iran fail to consider. The West and Israel don't want Iran to have weapons, ergo Iran should have weapons, and potential consequences be damned.

Best post I've seen about this subject. Ever.

conorhal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nuclear weapons shouldnt be had by anybody , but in a world where isreal and the US have them then you need some balance in the world

You've a seriously warped view of what constitutes balance, one akin to saying 'sure half the farmers in the area have legally held shotguns, so what we need to do is go down to the local traveller encampment and start handing some out there....'

IcedOut

No-one should be allowed to make Nuclear weapons.

Even if a country were to use one it would make everything 10 times worse, no country should have nuclear weapons.

AngryBollix

conorhal wrote: »

You've a seriously warped view of what constitutes balance, one akin to saying 'sure half the farmers in the area have legally held shotguns, so what we need to do is go down to the local traveller encampment and start handing some out there....'

Whats your definition of balance?

AngryBollix

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yep, ya got me. The USA.:rolleyes: As often said before, I'll take them ahead of Ahmedinejad and his bully-boys any day of the week. A bunch of thugs with AK47s.

No way should these cnuts be allowed to proceed. Ever.

Who have they been bullying and why?

AngryBollix

Einhard wrote: »

Just a hypothetical, though not entirely unlikely, scenario.

Iran develops a nuclear weapon. She takes major offence to some Western policy of containment involving sanctions and trade embargoes (entirely legal in this instance). She closes the Straits of Hormuz. The Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are outraged but can't do anything because Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. America decides to intervene, not to attack Iran, but to clear the straits. Iran responds that if America intervenes, she will deploy her nuclear arsenal.

This is not an impossible scenario. Unlikely perhaps, but not at all implausible. We have a situation in which a nuclear armed Iran holds the world hostage through blocking the straits of Hormuz. And threatens nuclear retaliation should anyone attempt to stop her.

What happens next? Does the world capitulate? Does America proceed anyway and risk nuclear war? What of the Gulf States held hostage by a nuclear armeed neighbour?

You see, these are the kind of potentialities that those who clamour for a nuclear armed Iran fail to consider. The West and Israel don't want Iran to have weapons, ergo Iran should have weapons, and potential consequences be damned.

Iran would not be in a position to hold the world to ransom. Nukes or no nukes given There was a strong recent presence of British, French and US naval vessels in the straits of Hormuz rendering your scenario virtually impossible.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-22/middleeast/world_meast_us-iran-aircraft-carrier_1_aircraft-carrier-carrier-group-strait?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

44leto

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Nuclear weapons shouldnt be had by anybody , but in a world where isreal and the US have them then you need some balance in the world

The Hobbesian Trap
If you come down stairs with a gun and meet a burglar who also has a gun. Do you shoot him before he shoots you, or do you put your gun down and hope he does the same. The same thought process applies to the burglar.

The same thought process would go through 2 nuclear powers in a conflict.

But to stop a situation from escalating, or to ease the stand off, you need a third party, in this case the third party is the rest of the world. I don't think Iran would deploy a nuclear weapon no more then any other nation would.

But I still don't want the nuclear club to get any bigger, I want the world shot of those dire things. Hiroshima was a small device a fission bomb of about 40 kilotons, modern H Bomb fusion weapons range from 1 to 25 Megatons. For one of those to hit a city it is just unthinkable and absolutely irrational.

Eric Cartman

conorhal wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nuclear weapons shouldnt be had by anybody , but in a world where isreal and the US have them then you need some balance in the world

You've a seriously warped view of what constitutes balance, one akin to saying 'sure half the farmers in the area have legally held shotguns, so what we need to do is go down to the local traveller encampment and start handing some out there....'

The difference here is that the travellers (US, isreal) have the guns and the farmers dont, and their at a wedding, and drunk

GowlBag

Einhard wrote: »

No one had died because of Fukushima, and there was very little damage to human health because of Chernobyl. That's not my opinion but that of the UN. Both incidents were blown entirely out of proportion by the media and anti-nuclear activists.

So you obviously believe everything the UN tells you huh?

Little excerpt from National Geographic's "Inside Chernobyl":


"The millions of ordinary people who had the bad luck to live downwind of Chernobyl are also at risk. The initial explosion rained radioactive material to the west of the reactor, sparing Pripyat a direct hit while killing a swath of pines that became known as the Red Forest for the eerie red needles of the dead trees. "The winds were very, very fortunate," says Ronald Chesser, an ecologist at Texas Tech University who is studying the plume as a model of what might happen if a radioactive dirty bomb exploded in an American city.

Then, as the reactor burned out of control, winds swept the cloud north. Seventy percent of the radioactivity drifted into Belarus, contaminating nearly a quarter of the country. Yet the Soviet government left people there in the dark. While children in Pripyat were taking iodine pills hours after the explosion, authorities in Belarus did not begin distributing pills for a week or more. All that time children were drinking milk laced with radioactive iodine 131 from cows that had grazed on contaminated grass. The short-lived, powerful isotope made its way to the thyroid gland, which has an affinity for iodine.

Starting in 1990, Alexei Okeanov and others observed the consequences: a sharp rise in childhood thyroid cancer. "It was absolutely obvious it was due to Chernobyl, but it was very hard to prove," Okeanov says. Before Chernobyl, Belarus had two or three cases a year in children under the age of 15. In 1995 there were 90 cases. To date about 4,000 children and teenagers in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine have been diagnosed with the cancer, the largest fraction of them from Homyel, a heavily contaminated region of Belarus just north of Chernobyl. Although thyroid cancer has one of the highest cure rates of any malignancy, at least nine children died when their tumors spread, and survivors must spend a lifetime on medication."

Sykk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The difference here is that the travellers (US, isreal) have the guns and the farmers dont, and their at a wedding, and drunk

You should read what you just wrote. You want Iran to have nuclear weapons.. Simply because America has them? Am I reading that right?

I don't even...

AngryBollix

Einhard wrote: »

No one had died because of Fukushima, and there was very little damage to human health because of Chernobyl. That's not my opinion but that of the UN. Both incidents were blown entirely out of proportion by the media and anti-nuclear activists.

64 deaths due to radiation in the chernobyl accident.

With varying estimates of the possible number of resulting cancer cases. 4000 according to the world health organisation

with fukushima rated as a 7 on the INES scale

Einhard

GowlBag wrote: »

So you obviously believe everything the UN tells you huh?

Little excerpt from National Geographic's "Inside Chernobyl":


"The millions of ordinary people who had the bad luck to live downwind of Chernobyl are also at risk. The initial explosion rained radioactive material to the west of the reactor, sparing Pripyat a direct hit while killing a swath of pines that became known as the Red Forest for the eerie red needles of the dead trees. "The winds were very, very fortunate," says Ronald Chesser, an ecologist at Texas Tech University who is studying the plume as a model of what might happen if a radioactive dirty bomb exploded in an American city.

Then, as the reactor burned out of control, winds swept the cloud north. Seventy percent of the radioactivity drifted into Belarus, contaminating nearly a quarter of the country. Yet the Soviet government left people there in the dark. While children in Pripyat were taking iodine pills hours after the explosion, authorities in Belarus did not begin distributing pills for a week or more. All that time children were drinking milk laced with radioactive iodine 131 from cows that had grazed on contaminated grass. The short-lived, powerful isotope made its way to the thyroid gland, which has an affinity for iodine.

Starting in 1990, Alexei Okeanov and others observed the consequences: a sharp rise in childhood thyroid cancer. "It was absolutely obvious it was due to Chernobyl, but it was very hard to prove," Okeanov says. Before Chernobyl, Belarus had two or three cases a year in children under the age of 15. In 1995 there were 90 cases. To date about 4,000 children and teenagers in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine have been diagnosed with the cancer, the largest fraction of them from Homyel, a heavily contaminated region of Belarus just north of Chernobyl. Although thyroid cancer has one of the highest cure rates of any malignancy, at least nine children died when their tumors spread, and survivors must spend a lifetime on medication."

So...9 children have died because of tyroid cancer linked to Chernobyl? Thanks for proving my point that the incident has been blown entirely out of proportion.

Volovo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The US was ruled by the religious right for years. Not to mention the fact that they are the only nation to have ever actually used nuclear weapons (barring some french incident I'm not entirely sure of the details of) If anyone cant be trusted it's them.
Nobody should have nuclear weapons, they are expensive, dangerous and frankly obsolete in an era when the biggest threat to a nation is from small internal groups.
Russia's stockpile did prevent the Beslan massacre.
America's arsenal didnt stop 9/11.
Trident in Britain didnt foil the 7/7 bombings.
They should all be done away with and given that America sees itself as a world leader they should be the first to decommission their deadly arsenal.
After that any nation attempting to build them should face serious sanctions. But for America to dictate who can and cant have them while they continue to stockpile the biggest arsenal in the world (not to mention funding Israel's psychotic programme) is hypocrisy of the highest order

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, its an ideal world where that would happen. Today, I think its still better not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The country is just too unstable and unpredictable.

Einhard

AngryBollix wrote: »

64 deaths due to radiation in the chernobyl accident.

With varying estimates of the possible number of resulting cancer cases. 4000 according to the world health organisation

with fukushima rated as a 7 on the INES scale

Again, blown out of proportion. I'm not stating that nobody died, but from what one hears about Chernobyl one would believe that thousands died.

BTW, most the illnesses and deaths were caused by tyroid cancer which is both preventable and treatable.

All the stats provided thusfar have proven my point. I wish everyone else who disagree with me would go to such lengths to counter their own arguments!;)

Anyhoo, slightly off topic so I'll leave it at that.

--Kaiser--

Einhard wrote: »

So...9 children have died because of tyroid cancer linked to Chernobyl? Thanks for proving my point that the incident has been blown entirely out of proportion.

I dunno man, I've heard things from a guy who adopts children from Chernobyl. It wasn't the end of the world but it's not comparable to the non-event that was Fukushima

Einhard

AngryBollix wrote: »

Iran would not be in a position to hold the world to ransom. Nukes or no nukes given There was a strong recent presence of British, French and US naval vessels in the straits of Hormuz rendering your scenario virtually impossible.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-22/middleeast/world_meast_us-iran-aircraft-carrier_1_aircraft-carrier-carrier-group-strait?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

All Iran has to do is mine the straits and then proclaim that any attempt to clear the mines will be meet a nuclear responses. Indeed, all Iran has to to do is pop a few ships in the straits and then threaten nuclear consequences should they be attacked.

The scenario is unlikely I think, not because Iran couldn't do it but because I doubt they'd choose to do so. However, it is a plausible scenario, despite your protestations otherwise.

Could you answer the questions I posed rather then dismissing them? i usually find that, when people do the latter, it's because they don't have any answers.

TeddyTedson

Nobody should.

But if some countries insist on continuing to build them, it's only fair other countries can too.


Wouldn't it be interesting if humans were wiped out.
I'm guessing most animals would die off too but if the planet was left with some insects and fish I wonder what would happen after millions of years. Would humans make a return?

RichieC

America stared down thousands of Nukes during the cold war like a champ and now we are to believe they are ****ting their pants over Iran making some caveman equivalent...

Einhard

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I dunno man, I've heard things from a guy who adopts children from Chernobyl. It wasn't the end of the world but it's not comparable to the non-event that was Fukushima

I'm not saying it was a non-event, just blown out of proportion by a gullible media and cynical activists.

When I heard that less than 100 people had died because of Chernobyl I was astonished. Surely that couldn't be true? But it is true, and it's true that most of the deaths and the cancers could have been avoided by prompt medical intervention, particularly the distribution of iodine capsules.

Millions of people did every year because of the byproducts of coal and oil in the air, and thousnads die in mines and processing centres for the same materials, and nobody demands that such industries be shut down. 64 people die because of Chernobyl, and nobody because of radiation from Fukushima, and yet people use those incidents to demand that nuclear power be abandonded. Where's the consistency there?

KeithAFC

No. They should not IMO.

Laika1986

I don't think Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons but obviously we can all agree there's no need for anyone to have nuclear weapons. But unfortunately that is not the case so if Iran's hostile neighbour has nuclear weapons they have every right to defend themselves. It's like challenging someone to a duel, handing them a stick and then shooting them

Rattlehead_ie

Einhard wrote: »

.........64 people die because of Chernobyl, and nobody because of radiation from Fukushima, and yet people use those incidents to demand that nuclear power be abandonded. Where's the consistency there?

Not that I am arguing with you. I believe it has been blown out of proportion in some ways, that being said. If Coal plant explodes, it causes mass damage to the surrounding area but eventually resides. On the other hand and where people do get scared and understand their point is that if a Nuclear plant goes up, never mind the immediate area, the surrounding area can be not only obliterated, but at least severe radiation will make the area completely uninhabitable. Then you have fallout as wide spread as for e.g Europe, where the the human food chain had been interrupted due to animals being uneadable due to radiation that was linked with the planet. Its the potential it has to cause , at any one given time, that scares people. Without trying to be racist here. If a plant went up like that in or near a countries main export or source of food, take rice in china for e.g the food chain is hit and the poor begin to starve.

Also note

In 1995 the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population determined that 5,722 of these workers had died. On top of this, roughly 100 plant personnel, Pripyat residents, local farmers, coal miners and officials were killed in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. These figures do not include deaths among Pripyat evacuees, about whom accurate information is very difficult to obtain.

Less than 100 people isnt exactly an accurate number. I believe approx. 35 soldiers / scientists alone died trying to get to the plant or standing on the roof in shifts of 45 seconds (I kid you not) while throwing debris and trying to cover up the reactor died.

Now back onto the topic :
Should Iran be allowed Nuclear weapons? NO.
Should anyone be allowed Nuclear weapons? No

Should anyone be allowed research and develop nuclear power for the use in domestic power needs? Of course yes, every country should have that right as long as they have proven to be able to manage, maintain and secure the facility.

There is no proof of Iran creating or enriching Uranium to beyond the point that is needed for efficient use in a power plant. Although they have come close I think to weapon grade. (I'm not up on my % / numbers when it comes to Nuclear weapons). To top that they have no valid LR mechinism for delivering a payload. The Ballistic missiles they have are short 500KM range. So for anyone trying to argue they could start a war with the UK, unlikely. They couldnt reach the far side of Turkey if they wanted to. NOTE: This is on the basis that UK do their homeland security right and dont let some extremist just walk into the UK to let a bomb off there.

RichieC

Einhard wrote: »

I'm not saying it was a non-event, just blown out of proportion by a gullible media and cynical activists.

When I heard that less than 100 people had died because of Chernobyl I was astonished. Surely that couldn't be true? But it is true, and it's true that most of the deaths and the cancers could have been avoided by prompt medical intervention, particularly the distribution of iodine capsules.

Within 4 years of the Chernobyl disaster at least 5000 workers had died.

Ellis Dee

Sykk wrote: »

I've seen some people argue in other threads that "America is the threat to world peace" and "Leave the Iranians alone, Israel are the real scum" etc etc.

Let's look at a few facts. The USA not only has nuclear weapons, but is also the only state that has actually used them, killing at least a quarter of a million people in two attacks on a country that was close to defeat in any case.

As for Israel being, to quote you, "the real scum", it is IMO a state that should never have been created. It is founded on a perverted, racist notion of superiority and a manifest destiny conferred by a sky fairy of some kind. Several million Russians and millions more from eastern Europe and many other parts of the world have been imported into Palestine and most of the people who had lived there for millennia have been dispossessed and enslaved, their land and other resources stolen. There were fewer than 50,000 Jews in Palestine in the 1930s, a minority living among the Palestinian majority and not subject to persecution.

In many ways, the state of Israel, with its exaggerated sense of victimhood, its belief in a deity-conferred right to lord it over other people, its insatiable hunger for Lebensraum to settle more of its kind, its disregard for the laws and opinions of other countries and so many other ugly features, has become a second coming of Nazi Germany. Given that the massacre of Jews in Europe during the Second World War impelled its creation, as a form of making the Arabs pay for European crimes, it is, grotesquely, also part of the evil legacy of Hitler.

The fact that this country has around three hundred nuclear warheads is deeply disturbuing, and there will never be any hope of its adopting fair policies towards the Palestinians as long as it enjoys its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. And its hunger for land and resources will not stop at the borders of Palestine.

Sykk wrote: »

For those of you who are in favor of leaving them alone.

Do you think they should be allowed to create nuclear weapons? You know they hate the western world so much so that they'd probably start firing them in this direction the second they don't start getting their demands?

The statements I have boldfaced reveal a profound ignorance and deep prejudice, which can only be rooted in that same ignorance. You really ought to read a little of the history of Iran. Then you would see that it last launched a war of aggression in 1768, nearly a decade before the USA came into being. It has, however, been attacked on numerous occasions.

Read also about the more recent history of Iran - invaded jointly by the Soviet Union and the British (!!!) during the Second World War and occupied until its end. The Shah (emperor), who was no great shakes as a human being, was deposed by the Soviet-Brits and his son, a total psychopath, installed in his place.

After the war, Iran began evolving towards democracy, the Shah was deposed and the Mossadeq government was making good progress - until it made the mistake of attempting to nationalise the country's oil resources, which the British controlled.

The elected government was deposed in a CIA-led coup and the Shah reinstated. From them on until he was overthrown in 1979, he ruled with extreme brutality and a secret police trained by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad terror organisation. Even the mildest dissent was squashed and the people's anger bottled up under a reign of terror for decades, while the Shah squandered his country's oil wealth on grandiose, wasteful projects and American arms, that in effect made him a junior partner in the USA's encirclement of the Soviet Union. What hope was there of any progress towards democracy in such circumstances? The Shah and his vicious region could not have been overthrown by the boy scouts. Without the CIA, Iran might well be almost on the level of India as a democracy today. The distasteful regime in Tehran is largely an (inadvertent) creation of the USA and, to a lesser, extent its British poodle and Israeli katyr.

When he was finally overthrown and the country fell into turmoil, the USA was quick to take its revenge by aiding and abetting the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his attempt to seize the Iranian oil fields. The fact that Saddam had earlier publicly hanged Jews in baghdad did not stop the Israeli from helping him, either. Moses is Moses, but business is business, especially dirty business ...

Thus Iranians do not "hate" the West, but they certainly have no reason to love or trust us.

Sykk wrote: »

I for one say no. Whatever about the USA and others having nuclear capabilities... I don't think a country ruled by religion should be given such capabilities. Do you?

I would prefer it if there were no nuclear weapons on the planet, but countries don't actually come much more religious than the USA anyway.

In fact, it was the Shah, with American encouragement, who first mooted the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear state. The Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew him, immediately cancelled the programme and denounced nuclear weapons as "the work of the devil". You won't hear that from too many of the religious nutbars who rule the United States.

Finally, it is not a question of anyone giving the Iranians nuclear capabilities. As a sovereign nation of nearly 80 million people (more than Britain or France), they have a right to make that decision themselves and they will acquire the necessary capabilities whether anyone outside wants it or not. Then, if they feel a need to have nuclear weapons, they will change their minds and acquire them.

GowlBag

Einhard wrote: »

there was very little damage to human health because of Chernobyl. That's not my opinion but that of the UN. Both incidents were blown entirely out of proportion by the media and anti-nuclear activists.

Einhard wrote: »

So...9 children have died because of tyroid cancer linked to Chernobyl? Thanks for proving my point that the incident has been blown entirely out of proportion.

Yeah, fück the sick kids they don't count! I'd say cancer is damage to human health. You weren't talking about casualties.

Captain_Generic

While the US telling other countries not to have nuclear weapons is utter hypocrisy, the real issue is whether Iran has the necessary security in place to ensure none of the nukes they produce fall into the wrong hands. If Iranian nukes had comparable security to the US's then I wouldn't have any problem with them, but I seriously doubt they would.

Iran would never attack the US, a few resourceful nutjobs would.

c_man

Love seeing the knee-jerk anti-American stance making people support nuclear weapons/power. They'll be back lecturing us on the evils of nuke power tomorrow

Nuclear weapons are horrible things, I'm opposed to their proliferation on principle. Maybe a case could be made for them acting as a balance (e.g. India Pakistan) but the ME is way too ****ed up to risk something like that.

c_man

RichieC wrote: »

Within 4 years of the Chernobyl disaster at least 5000 workers had died.

Any figures for any of that?

From the WHO quick google,

A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

irelandspurs

Send in Jack Bauer

Toby Take a Bow

c_man wrote: »

Love seeing the knee-jerk anti-American stance making people support nuclear weapons/power. They'll be back lecturing us on the evils of nuke power tomorrow

Nuclear weapons are horrible things, I'm opposed to their proliferation on principle. Maybe a case could be made for them acting as a balance (e.g. India Pakistan) but the ME is way too ****ed up to risk something like that.

I'm seeing some fairly informed responses addressing the complexity of the situation and not knee-jerk responses. Labeling them so doesn't make them so.

Sykk

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Let's look at a few facts. The USA not only has nuclear weapons, but is also the only state that has actually used them, killing at least a quarter of a million people in two attacks on a country that was close to defeat in any case.

As for Israel being, to quote you, "the real scum"

I never said that?

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The statements I have boldfaced reveal a profound ignorance and deep prejudice, which can only be rooted in that same ignorance. You really ought to read a little of the history of Iran. Then you would see that it last launched a war of aggression in 1768, nearly a decade before the USA came into being..

And? What has that to do with ANYTHING? It is a country ruled by Islamic extremism... They fund terrorist organizations so your idea that they're a sound bunch of lads since 1768 is a little off the mark.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

After the war, Iran began evolving towards democracy, the Shah was deposed and the Mossadeq government was making good progress - until it made the mistake of attempting to nationalise the country's oil resources, which the British controlled.

Cheers for the relevant history lesson.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Thus Iranians do not "hate" the West, but they certainly have no reason to love or trust us.

We are the epitome of what their ideals and religion stands against.. So yes they absolutely hate us.

...

c_man

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I'm seeing some fairly informed responses addressing the complexity of the situation and not knee-jerk responses.

That must be why the Saudis, whos concern over the Iran in general is immense, are mentioned as often as the US/Israel in the 'pro-nuke' posts. Oh wait...

man.about.town

is this really worth a discussion, under no circumstances should a country like iran have nuclear weapons. ffs, there president has said a thousand times that he wants to see Israel knocked off the face of the earth.... them bitches be crazzy

RichieC

man.about.town wrote: »

is this really worth a discussion, under no circumstances should a country like iran have nuclear weapons. ffs, there president has said a thousand times that he wants to see Israel knocked off the face of the earth.... them bitches be crazzy

He never said that. he said the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time.

Einhard

GowlBag wrote: »

Yeah, fück the sick kids they don't count! I'd say cancer is damage to human health. You weren't talking about casualties.

Yeah that's exactly what I said. F*ck kids with cancer. That's what I think.

Do you have a general tendency to outrageous overreaction or is it just in this instance?

Randy Anders

Put it this way; If I was an Iranian citizen, I would want my government to have a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to Israel and the US.

They know they will never use the weapon, because if they do they do, they will be nuked off the face of the earth. It would be used as a deterrent only, and a very good one at that

foxyboxer

Nukes are MAD yokes. :cool:



mutually assured destruction

Rezident

If they are building nuclear weapons, presumably one main target is Israel but would they detonate nukes in Israel on the land the Palestinians want to live on? The Iranian leader is a religious fundamentalist so I'm sure it could happen but would be ultimately counter productive.

BOHtox

Iran can have them if others have them. So can anybody. But realistically, noone needs them!

man.about.town

RichieC wrote: »

He never said that. he said the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time.

tomateo potato

brimal

No. Iran should not be allowed develop nukes.

A country that has such little disregard for it's own people should never be trusted with nukes.

man.about.town

Randy Anders wrote: »

Put it this way; If I was an Iranian citizen, I would want my government to have a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to Israel and the US.

They know they will never use the weapon, because if they do they do, they will be nuked off the face of the earth. It would be used as a deterrent only, and a very good one at that

there not really a deterrent to the US yet, they havent even mastered medium range missiles as a delivery system, so there main target would be Israel. viva la Israel

Freddie59

RichieC wrote: »

He never said that. he said the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time.

Wishful thinking on that cnuts part. Never gonna happen. He'll be gone first.:)

man.about.town

if america and the west are such bad places, why are so many immigrants/asylum seekers flocking its shores in search of a better life. we are so lucky to live where we do, america is no enemy of the west.

any iranian living here will tell you they lived in fear in there own country, its militarized and controlling, same as so many arab countries. its easy to jump on the down with america band wagon but i for one think its a great country and i would trust any western country with a nuke.