Let Iran Go Nuclear?

[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 ( ) - 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.

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.

[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.