Should the World Community allow Iran to develop Nuclear Weapons?

Paraphrase: We can deal with a nuclear Iran.

I made a compromise supporting him with the belief that he's not stupid enough to attack Iran.

You just believe the shit they feed you on television...just as you did with Iraq...you never believe anyone unless you see it on television. Shit, talk about minds easily manipulated....just keep watching the same thing they feed you over & over on television and you'll believe it as truth...

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and must honor that treaty until and unless they withdraw from it.

If they do withdraw..., well then, they are a sovreign nation, so that's up to them.

I take such treaties seriously, as they should be. I have no tolerance for this administration refusing to honor it's international agreements, either.

However, we have no indication that Iran is developing bomb-grade nuclear material, and there are UN inspectors in the country. So we're SOL, legally.

The Persian people are far older than the current regime and will likely out live it as well. When it's finally brought down by pressure from within, from the Iranians in the street, then they will weigh in on the regime's nuclear weapons program. Whatever the decision, we should learn to accept it, just as the world accepted a nuclear Russia and a nuclear China. If we don't respect their decision, there will be a conflict.

and they dont seem to be discussing giving them up. rather they are developing them further.
but they sure dont want anyone else to have them.

does iran with a nuke or 2 or 10 really pose a threat to anyone?
the only thing it would do is partially neutralize the threatening posture iran has to endure every day.

India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, all of which are actually nuclear powers. Every nation but those four (189 in total, of which only five are nuclear powers) have signed the non-proliferation treaty, meaning it is the official position of every signatory nation (but necessarily those four) that Iran must not have nuclear weapons.

does nothing to address or control or put any demands upon the 'super' powers.

the us, russia, china, france, england. they do whatever they want, treaties be damned. creating newer more deadly weapons and more horrific technologies and the only rein on their weapons are from the other super powers pressure.

it is a rigged and unfair treaty and the majority of the countries joined it out of fear and lack of actual power.

I just think it's irredemably stupid to put "all options on the table" to prevent it, especially since the Bushies have been egging on India and Pakistan's nuclear arms race and not paying a damned bit of attention to the very deteriorated state of command and control over Russia's nukes, a country which remains our biggest nuclear threat. (In real life, for anybody at ground zero, there really ISN'T any difference between "Die Yankee dog" and "Oopsie".) And I don't give a bloody goddam about Iarael--with 500+ nukes they can jolly well defend themselves.

right of national self defense.

However, does it strike anyone else as a tad peculiar that other countries, and particularly, the favored state, and its current "war OF terror," with thousands of nukes - and also a host of other diabolical, extinction-ensuring goodies and devices - would be so concerned about the potential dangers of a "nuclear Iran?" ...something's amiss.

First of all, as Iran has said and inspectors confirmed, Iran has no interest in making bomb material, merely fuel for their reactor, which they desperately need. Secondly, even if Iran was trying to build a bomb, it is at least ten years out, since enriching uranium via centrifuge is a damn long process.

Stop trying to frame this as an either/or debate. You're as bad as "your girl" on this issue.

...

Leaving aside the other issues, I think it might be a reach to say this.

Considering that Iran has a virtually complete nuclear power plant, and all they're really waiting on is the fuel, which Russia has put off delivering five times now, yes, I would say that they desperately need the fuel. They correctly don't want to have others controlling their fuel source, so they are investing in the time, energy and knowledge needed to enrich the fuel themselves.

Enriching uranium with gaseous diffusion is a long, slow process, despite the fact that you're not enriching the fuel that much overall, or the fact that Iran has three thousand centrifuges. Given the amount of fuel they need, the process would take awhile, at least a year or more.

This is why the notion that Iran is enriching uranium up to weapons grade. The time it would take is around ten years, and so much could happen between now and then.

while Iran has a nuclear plant waiting on fuel, they don't have an energy shortage. If they had an energy shortage that only this nuclear plant could resolve, then I would say they DESPERATELY need fuel.

What exactly are they waiting on from Russia, uranium or enriched uranium? It sounds like they have the capability of enriching the uranium themselves so they must be waiting on raw uranium, correct? Iran doesn't have their own raw uranium?

While Iran is sitting on top of a lot of oil, they have no refineries to turn it into gas and other petroleum products. They don't have the energy infrastructure, in party because of past exploitation by colonial powers, in part because of the war with Iraq. This nuclear plant is a vital cog in their energy infrastructure.

What they were/are waiting on from Russia is enriched uranium. Russia has pushed back delivery five times now, and Iran decided to start enriching their own because of that. Yes, they have the capability, but like I said, gaseous diffusion is a long, slow process. And no, Iran doesn't have its own raw uranium.

Here's an interesting link regarding Iran's energy problems <http://www.huliq.com/5532/iran-people-shiver-in-an-energy-rich-land>

What I do know is that Iran is wanting to expand its energy infrastructure, and they wish to do so with nuclear power. Is that a crime? Do only the developed countries get to have nuclear power?

And since you have been arguing (or at least, seem to be arguing) that Iran is justified in developing nuclear power to relieve an energy shortage, you ought to be able to answer questions about Iran's alternatives.

How can you claim that Iran is justified in this if you don't know about the costs and benefits of other alternatives? If there cheaper, cleaner, and less politically volatile alternatives, then that raises the question of why Iran would pursue nuclear capabilities when more appealing options are available

Let me ask you this, why do you think that Iran isn't justified to develop a nuclear power program? You seem to be hell bent on denying a sovereign nation their right to decide their own energy policy, why is that?

As far as cheaper, cleaner and less politically volatile alternatives, what would you suggest? Going with hydrocarbons of any sort, coal, natural gas, oil, all add greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, never mind the fact that Iran can't refine these products. Solar and wind:shrug: who knows why Iran doesn't want to go with those. What they want to do, and have every right to do as a sovereign country, is to develop a peaceful nuclear technology to power their society. Why are you so seemingly set against this? Why is it OK for damn near every other country, including N. Korea, to have nuclear power, yet you wish to ban Iran from having it?

There are several factors that play into a country's energy decisions, not the least of which is natural resources and cost. You are wanting the impossible from me, a breakdown of Iran's answers to these two critical questions. I simply don't have that information, and frankly I doubt that many people outside the Iranian government has that information. What I do know is that Iran has a desperate need for energy infrastructure, and they are trying to provide that to their citizens. Why are you so dead set against them providing this infrastructure for their citizens?

As far as why I oppose this, it's because nuclear proliferation is a threat to world peace and human health.

They aren't developing a bomb, they are developing a nuclear energy program to crank out electricity, you know, nuclear reactors. Hell, even the IAEA has found no bomb making equipment, parts, procedures or any other sort of bomb related evidence. What the fuck makes you think that they're developing a bomb?

Geez, way to jump all over that Busco booga booga bomb wagon. Stop and think for just one minute.

I suppose ALL of those other nations that are concerned about Iranian nukes are also on board the "wagon", eh? Because all those nations are so "on board" with bush*, right?

Are you somehow more knowledgable in this matter than the IAEA? Do you think that somehow Iran can defy the laws of nuclear physics and pull a bomb out of its ass tomorrow? Do you even fucking know what it takes to build a bomb, and how long it takes? Or do you just get your news from Faux and get terrified for no good reason every evening?

Let me put this in simple terms that you can understand. Iran doesn't have a bomb. The IAEA has gone in, had free access where ever they wanted to go, and didn't find any evidence of a bomb. Iran's enrichment program is for enriching to fuel grade only. It would take ten years or longer for Iran to enrich enough material to weapons grade(aprox. 95%). Oh, and there are actually very few countries that hold the view of Iran as bombmaker, and most of those joined the US in its illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq. Not very good company to keep, wouldn't you say.

But hey, if you want to keep freaking yourself out over nothing, go for it.

who are also opposed about Iran developing nukes

You are willing to fore go the evidence presented by an objective international body dedicated and imminently qualified to find nuclear weapons even though they positively state that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. You are also willing to fore go the basics of nuclear physics that unequivocally show that Iran cannot create a bomb any earlier that 2017. Instead you base your unreasonable fear on the statements of our allies. Well hell, lets take a look at their record in recent years. While the British and Australians were right there frothing at the mouth over supposed WMD in Iraq, UN and IAEA inspectors were calmly reporting there was no such thing. And gee, after we invaded Iraq what did we find? Oh, yeah, those objective, highly qualified international organizations were right, there were no WMDs.

But here you are, in irrational panic mode because of what our allies said, even though those proven international bodies are again refuting the lies and propaganda. Worse yet, you're taking the word of our allies over solid scientific fact. Wow, with mindsets like yours it's no wonder Bush had so little trouble fooling the public into supporting an illegal, immoral war.

Sorry dude, but that's just plain sad. Sad that you're so gullible, sad that you are so foolish, sad that you're once more allowing yourself to be goaded into another costly and unneeded war. Look, I can understand making a mistake like that once(barely). But to do so twice, that's just plain ignorant, either that or willful blindness.

So, let me ask you this, how is Iran, with this slow, old nuclear tech, going to build a bomb? How are they going to enrich enough uranium in anything shorter than ten years to have nuclear capability? Sure, they could switch to some other enrichment method, but gee, that's more time passing by. So how are they going to pull off this miracle?

The list of personal attacks (ex gullable, foolish, fear, etc) proves you are unable to hold a civil discussion with anyone who does not already agree with you.

And it was flat out dishonest of you to speak of only Britain and Australia when speaking of our allies. France and Germany are both concerned about Iran, and neither supported *'s invasion.

Despite all of the objective, scientific evidence presented to you, despite the findings of objective, expert inspection organizations, you are hell bent on scaring yourself, and the wider world, with the specter of a nuclear armed Iran. Sorry if you think I've been a bit harsh on you, but frankly attitudes like yours are what got us into Iraq and I'll be damned if I'll see the same mindset get us into an Iranian war.

You know, one reason that we study history is to learn from the past. Well, the Iraq debacle isn't that far in the past. Go study it, go understand how a ruthless, oil mad president suckered a bunch of people into an illegal, immoral war. Then go and reflect on this knowledge in light of Iran, and see if your mind doesn't change. I certainly hope it does, because you are on exactly the wrong track right now.

The invasion of Iraq - I did that. It was all my fault.

All of that false intel - That was me. I told Curveball what to say

The hang-up between the Franco-German power and American power is that Bush has stated that for any negotiation to proceed, Iran must stop uranium enrichment as the basis for negotiation. Iran has said no because that would mean enrichment for peaceful purposes is also banned, and that is where Iran argues they have a sovereign right to a peaceful nuclear power program.

"It would take ten years or longer for Iran to enrich enough material to weapons grade(aprox. 95%)."
Nope. They have 3000 centrifuges now - when this calculator was made, they only had 165.
Uranium Enrichment Calculator: http://www.fas.org/cgi-bin/ucountdown.pl

I worked for years in a nuclear facility, running gaseous diffusion centrifuges, and all that experience added nothing to my knowledge on this subject. Yes, the almighty internet knows more than a highly qualified lab rat out in the field:eyes: Oh, here's another link from your source <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf> But hey, since qualified people in the field, and your own source disagree with you, they just must be wrong, right:eyes:

You wrote, "It would take ten years or longer for Iran to enrich enough material to weapons grade(aprox. 95%)."
That's what I was responding to.
According to the pdf you linked, it would only take 330 days, because they already have 3000 centrifuges:

"Calculations of nuclear weapons production are generally based on estimates of
fissile material production. One calculation is that a cascade of 1000 P-1 centrifuges could
produce one bomb’s worth of HEU (25 kg) in 2.2 to 2.7 months; and that a cascade of
3000 P-1 centrifuges could produce the same amount in 330 days.12 However, such an
estimate assumes that Iran has the necessary amount and quality of uranium hexafluoride
to feed the enrichment plant, the necessary components for building 1000 or 3000
centrifuges, and the necessary engineering skills to keep such cascades operating with few
mishaps and little downtime. In short, Iran’s limited experience in enrichment so far
should not be equated yet with an ability to operate an industrial-scale enrichment plant
for peaceful or weapons purposes."

That last line is fun: they can't use this for peaceful or weapons purposes.
Oh well, I guess it was just a waste of money.

"According to one report, the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran assesses that it will be 10 years before Iran has a bomb."

Hell, the Iranians are so accomodating that they're willing to install centrifuges that will self destruct if they enrich beyond the fuel rating: "He did not elaborate. Iran believes the proposal for an international consortium is the best option to end the deadlock, but has also proposed the permanent stationing of UN inspectors and even "smart centrifuges" which explode when uranium is enriched past a certain percentage."<http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2798521.ece>

Iran has every right to produce nuclear power for their own, peaceful purposes. However the Bush administration and warmongers everywhere are trying to take a legit, peaceful nuclear program and turn it into some sort of scary nuclear warhead program, all to have an excuse to invade, conquer and steal all that oil, just like they did in Iraq. Are you really that gullible? Didn't the Iraq debacle teach you anything?

"They correctly don't want to have others controlling their fuel source, so they are investing in the time, energy and knowledge needed to enrich the fuel themselves."

If they don't want others having control over their energy sources, then why wouldn't they build an infrastructure to exploit the energy they do have control over (oil). As it is, even with their uranium enriching process, they'll still be dependant on others for raw uranium, won't they? Depending on Nuclear energy will make them MORE dependant, not less dependant on others, won't it?

Perhaps they want to sell their oil rather than burn it. Perhaps they don't want the air pollution like the US has due to burning hydrocarbons. And frankly, any country the size of Iran is going to have to be dependent on the world to a greater or lesser extent, since they aren't large enough like the US to have a plethora of resources.

A question like, "Should they have nuclear materials" might be tricky, but this is clearly about weapons.

Yet anybody with any sort of modicum of nuclear training could tell you that they're not. Hell, even the IAEA has been in, poked their nose in everywhere and declared that Iran isn't developing a bomb. Yet it amazes me how many people around here are falling all over themselves trying to jump on the Bushco booga booga bandwagon about Iran and the bomb. Don't you realize where this kind of groupthink leads? Oh, yeah, another illegal, immoral, pre-emptive war.

They're being threatened by a megalomaniac with 20,000 nukes at his disposal, but who has been deterred by other nations who have nukes themselves.

In fact it's kind of hard to think of any other purpose for this silly poll.

I can hear it now... "Looks like the morans who used to be against nucular bombs don't care if I-RAN has them".

they agree that isreal has the right to exist and withdraw support for Hezbollah.

The problem with the latter is not Hebollah per se. its simply an issue of nations interfering in the internal affairs of others.

Without that....there is little doubt in my mind that theier will be a war between Sunni and Shiia forces and theor patron Governments in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

No one should have them.

TC

Iran, Israel, US, China (PRC), France, India, Pakistan ... should not have nuclear weapons.

(By the way, where did you get your sig pic?)

I was under the impression they still claimed it was peaceful purposes. That said, no, they shouldn't. Similarly, the world community should not allow the U.S, North Korea, or anywhere else to have nuclear weapons either.

not the non-existence treaty.

Nuclear weapons are the only guarantee that the US will not turn a country into another Iraq. If you invade us, we will nuke you!

Sometimes I get the feeling around here that people want to bomb Iran.

We are certain that the anti-Amahdinejad Iranians will welcome our bombs with flowers, and with singing and dancing in the streets.

:sarcasm:

The worst part is to see Democrats that voted for Iraq War Resolution because they "trusted" Bush repeat the same mistake by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Bombing Resolution, also because they "trust" Bush to "apply pressure" on Iran as he did on Iraq. :eyes:

A country w/o nukes may hesitate to take military action against another for fear that their victims ally, the US, will nuke the crap out of them. A nation with nukes can threaten to use it's nukes if the US gets involved, thereby keeping the US on the sidelines, allowing our ally to be attacked

Including reduction here.

than they are. The fact that we have them makes that point.

And 52 years later there's still only one nation that has actually used them...

For when the entire world backed Iraq's invasion of Iran and subsidized the Shah -- to start with.

though it would be worth a try. how about we start?

Either all countries can't have any or all are allowed.

Thanks for a poll which clearly demonstrates it.

That try to force DUers into making a false choice? No, I don't think that's it at all.

Joe Lieberman couldn't have come up with a more bogus poll.

in our rush to be peaceniks many would allow the proliferation of nukes in the hands of unstable terrorist supporting regimes that would like to disappear Israel, lol.

And if you think its a trick question, point me to where you make that case so I can refute it.

And was born of terrorism. Israel is also a very aggressive state that spies on the US and has even targeted and murdered US servicemen. Iran is no more dangerous ... or more dangerous to the US than Israel is.

Spare me the "terrorist supporting" nonsense.


"And if you think its a trick question, point me to where you make that case so I can refute it."

Should the world community allow non-signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to develop or possess nuclear weapons? :eyes:

and even if -- in spite of a total lack of evidence --they were -- they would be several years away from developing such weapons - should the United States unilaterally attack Iran in defiance of the international community?

Let's make the question somewhat connected to reality.

____________________________________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.




.