Let Iran Go Nuclear?

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 01-11-2006, 04:51

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** · 01-11-2006, 11:24

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.

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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** · 01-11-2006, 12:28

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** · 01-11-2006, 12:43

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** · 01-11-2006, 12:52

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

**Adrian II** · 01-11-2006, 13:57

Originally Posted by Fragony

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** · 01-11-2006, 17:00

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

**Ja'chyra** · 01-11-2006, 12:56

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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).