Let Iran Go Nuclear?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Why should/shoudn't we?

Would letting the Mullahs get nukes add stability - like MAD did in the Cold War? Or will it destabilize the region, and maybe set off a nuclear exchange?

I don't think we should let it happen, but what do you have to say?

EDIT: I mean access to nuclear weaponry, for this argument.

[Sartaq]

I think it all depends on how hell-bent Iran is on using nukes. They have to know they would subsequently wiped off the earth if they ever fired on US allies for instance.

[Sjakihata]

Well, I think we cant really say that they cant have nuclear power. Generally Im against nukes, so no nukes for Iran. But they should be allowed to produce nuclear power, imo.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I meant nuclear weapons, sorry. (Fixed first post)

Can't they derive fissible materials from nuclear power plants, though? Gaining backdoor access to the Bomb?

[Leet Eriksson]

Iran is not stupid, since Oil is running out eventually, maintaining a nuclear reactor and gaining experience would help them in the longer run.

I think they did tell allow the US to check their reactor out, allowed US and european companies stakes and whatnot. So i think they are pretty honest.

EDIT: Ooh weapons, well that would make things a bit more complex. But i think generally no one should be allowed nukes in the first place. If they get nuclear weapons, their government would need a replacement. The USA also should disarm Isreal, since they started the nuclear arms race in the middle east.

[Don Corleone]

You know, I've been thinking this one over a lot. And I realized something... that when it comes to Iran, I've been intellectually dishonest to myself and to all of you.

Iran is a sovereign nation. If they possess the means to develop nuclear energy or nuclear weaponry, on their own, who are we to tell them they cannot have it? I think we do have the right, and should to the extreme, seek to prohibit third parties from providing them with the technology. But if they achieve it on their own, I do not know by what moral right we could deny them.

That being said, I have deep disbelief that the North Koreans developed nuclear technology on their own. When we can prove who it was that provided them with it (and yes Virginia, Kim Jong Il has the bomb), they should be punished sufficiently that they'll never make that mistake again, regardless of how much that punishment might hurt us in the process. It's our duty to our children and grandchildren.

[Sartaq]

EDIT: Ooh weapons, well that would make things a bit more complex. But i think generally no one should be allowed nukes in the first place.

Ideally. But once pandora's box is opened, closing it is....

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I shouldn't say anything regarding Israel because that'll get OT in my own thread...

:juggle2:

Nevermind. :sweatdrop:

Exaggeration Alert
DC - would you let a madman build his own pipebombs? If they are just a chemistry wiz?

[Don Corleone]

Good question ATPG, but the answer is no, because the two situations are not coherent.

A sovereign nation has the ultimate authority to what it believes to be within it's best interest. An individual surrenders that right when they agree to live within a society. They retain other fundamental rights, such as a limited self determination, free enterprise, private property and self defense. But they do not possess the right to achieve any and all means of technology at their disposal.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What limits do sovereign nations have on their interactions with other sovereigns? What duties do they have to the "community of nations?" If none, what stops us from removing weapons or anything from Iran if we have even a whim to do it?

Or even better, if we have a strong, reasonable suspicion that Iran is up to no good in trying to attain weapons of incredible destruction?

[solypsist]

Hey I know. Let's invade, remove the current whacko fundamentalist government, destabilize the entire region, wage a 10 year war against the rebels who support the ousted leader, and then when we've had enough of it let's let another whacko fundamentalist government take it's place. We'll arm them heavily and in 20 more years when they invade a peaceful nation we'll have forgotten all about it! Who's with me?!

but seriously:

The world needs to be a level playing field in order to ensure equity, and the middle east has been marginalized and subjugated for far too long.

This is no different than what the USA did for it's NATO cohorts after we ushered in the atomic age. Nuclear power has immense potential, and frankly I can't think of a better place to build a bunch of reactors than in the desert.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Nevermind.

[Papewaio]

Who's with me?!

Anyone who can make a buck out of selling weapons, oil, supplies for the military or who speculates on gold.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Soly - reactors would be fine, on their own.

I ask you (and anyone else who cares): Is it a good thing for Iran to attain nuclear weapon capabilities?

If not, what can and should be done about it?

And maybe the Middle East needs nuclear weapons (:inquisitive: ) - should we start with allowing a nation whose government is actively hostile to another (democratic, generally pro-Western) nation?

I'll come clean; I stole this from a National Review piece (http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200601100812.asp).


Scenario Three. The long-awaited democratic revolution begins to develop in Iran. Massive crowds turn out in the streets demonstrating against the increasingly harsh laws imposed by the radical government. Students, liberal oppositionists — even joined by some army and police units — begin to coalesce into a true revolutionary force. The regime sends in the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guards, the only instrument left they can trust, to put an end to it. In a Tiananmen Square-style crackdown, tanks roll in to crush (literally) the revolutionaries, who plea for Coalition intervention. If it happened tomorrow, we could give the uprising enough air and other means of support to at least stave off catastrophe, maybe to tip the balance in their favor, and do so with majority support of the international community. But if the regime had nuclear weapons, would we risk intervening? Or would it be Hungary 1956 all over again? Moreover, say the liberal revolution looked like it would succeed without anyone’s help — would we be as eager to see the current regime destabilized if the endgame for the mullahs was a last-minute Armageddon-style nuclear launch when they were going down and had nothing to lose? Wouldn’t we tell the democratic opposition to cool it?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I'd say no weapons for Iran, they can have reactors, but as DC said the nation is the ultimate power when deciding what is in its best interest. Is it in the best interest of the US to allow Iran nuclear weapons? Nope, so should we let them have them just because we can't find a specific moral reason to stop them? No, because in my opinion the destruction that just one nuke can cause is enough to justify keeping people from developing nukes on their own.

To add to that I don't think any country should have nukes, but that's quite a long ways off and for now I'd settle for slow disarmament and the prevention of nuclear proliferation.

[Geoffrey S]

Weaponry? No freaking way. Though if they discovered it on their own I can't see anyone having the authority telling them they're not allowed to. But its their responsibility, and the Iranian government will have to live with whatever consequences the development of nuclear power/weapons might bring.

That being said, I have deep disbelief that the North Koreans developed nuclear technology on their own. When we can prove who it was that provided them with it (and yes Virginia, Kim Jong Il has the bomb), they should be punished sufficiently that they'll never make that mistake again, regardless of how much that punishment might hurt us in the process. It's our duty to our children and grandchildren.
Couldn't agree more. Spreading the ability to build nuclear weapons, presumably for cash, is a truly dispicable thing to do, with no thought for anyone but themselves.

[Fragony]

Iran is way to unstable to allow it to have nukes. It is bad enough these things exist, and it is bad enough that Iran exists. It would be insane to allow them to build these things, and they want them, why would a country sitting on one of the biggest oil reserves need nuclair power for anything else?

[Adrian II]

Teheran will get that nuclear weapon anyway, if it does not have one already. There is no way to prevent it apart from war, and there is no ground for such a war since Iran is a sovereign nation. Iran's strategic rationale is that it must develop adequate weaponry in the face of five nuclear-armed neighbours.

Experience shows that once they have 'the bomb', hotheaded leaders cool down considerably. This was last observed in India and Pakistan in the late 1990's. It will take a lot of diplomacy and a lot of to and fro on the ground before everyone will get used to Iran as a nuclear power, but things will settle down eventually.

[Fragony]

Experience shows that once they have 'the bomb', hotheaded leaders cool down considerably. This was last observed in India and Pakistan in the late 1990's. It will take a lot of diplomacy and a lot of to and fro on the ground before everyone will get used to Iran as a nuclear power, but things will settle down eventually.

That may be so but I still find the combination 'Israel should be whiped of the face of the earth' and Iran as a nuclair power rather frightening. The new president is a complete nutcase, and nutcases are dangerous enough with conventional weapons.

[Ja'chyra]

Teheran will get that nuclear weapon anyway, if it does not have one already. There is no way to prevent it apart from war, and there is no ground for such a war since Iran is a sovereign nation. Iran's strategic rationale is that it must develop adequate weaponry in the face of five nuclear-armed neighbours.

Lol, as if that would change anything.

I agree with DC, welcome back to the BR btw, it's their country and why should any country that already owns nukes tell another that they can't?

Pushing other countries around because you are the only superpower is all very well, but you should remember that you wont always be a superpower and payback is a bitch (heard that on a film so it must be true).

[Idaho]

I was president of Iran I would be looking to maintain a small nuclear capability. I am pretty much surrounded on one side by nuclear powers. Also my greatest enemy - Israel, an enemy who has attacked before, has nukes.

Also the US are always threatening and hinting about military invasion or other meddling.

I'd want nukes and I would want to not state that I had them, but leave no-one in much doubt about it.

[Adrian II]

I'd want nukes and I would want to not state that I had them, but leave no-one in much doubt about it.The Israeli policy. I agree that works best under circumstances where you do not want to commit to any checks or treaties and keep a free hand.

[Adrian II]

That may be so but I still find the combination 'Israel should be whiped of the face of the earth' and Iran as a nuclair power rather frightening. The new president is a complete nutcase, and nutcases are dangerous enough with conventional weapons.The Indian and Pakistani leaders were acting like complete nutcases (talking about 'wiping out' the other side every other day) in 1998, yet tension has gone down and now they are negotiating over Kashmir from a position of strategic security.

[Kanamori]

Iran is a sovereign nation. If they possess the means to develop nuclear energy or nuclear weaponry, on their own, who are we to tell them they cannot have it? I think we do have the right, and should to the extreme, seek to prohibit third parties from providing them with the technology. But if they achieve it on their own, I do not know by what moral right we could deny them.

I've been having the same thought, and I would definitely agree. I can understand why we wouldn't want them to have nukes, but unless they agree to some treaty, based on other pressures maybe, we have to no right to tell them anything. Except when there are obvious human rights infringements.

[Fragony]

I've been having the same thought, and I would definitely agree. I can understand why we wouldn't want them to have nukes, but unless they agree to some treaty, based on other pressures maybe, we have to no right to tell them anything. Except when there are obvious human rights infringements.

Like hanging a 17 year old girl because she was raped? Iran is a crazy country, and we have the right to tell them everything we want, just because we don't hang 17 year old girls because they were raped. And we have every right to protect ourselve against them when they aquire this technoligy, they hardly make a secret out of their ambitions. If they build nukes, we should drop daisy's.

[Reenk Roink]

:no:

but then again, I don't think Iran will make nuclear weapons...

[solypsist]

Iran already has eight reactors. They're tired of the expense and risk associated with sending their spent fuel to russian firms for processing... so they're persuing means to enrich, proces, and produce their own fuel locally.

You know, that "energy independence" idea that Dubya likes to talk about?

note: you edited your original post to mean only weapons, when previously you said "go nuclear".



Soly - reactors would be fine, on their own.

[solypsist]

Alexander the Pretty Good, please start another thread on this.

You changed your original topic four posts in, from "nuclear" to "weapons" and now looking over this thread, it's all over the place. Please consider what, spcifically, you want to talk about before submitting the text.