Iran and nuclear power

[just me]

Just a bit curious as to how people on this specific forum feel/think regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, so thought a small discussion would serve to better inform me as to the whereabouts of the different mindsets. First, a couple of facts:

1) Iran's leaders state they will destroy Israel.
2) Iran's leaders state the nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
3) Concessions are being offered Israel to stand down a military strike against Iran.
4) A nuclear attack against such a small state as Israel would basically neutralize any of those concessions being offered. They cannot protect Israel's people.

My questions are simple and basic.
1) Do you believe Iran's statements their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only? Yes or no
2) Given Iran's statement they will destroy Israel, do you think concessions will make Israel's people feel all cozy and safe enough to stand down? Yes or no

I just want to see how we/you feel for future references. Thank you for your time. This will be a sixty day poll.

 

[Barnabas]

it's iffy ground, it's hard to play world police and say no "Nuke Power For You!", but with so many innocent lives as potential victimsI would have to say "No Nuke For You!"

 

[just me]

it's iffy ground, it's hard to play world police and say no "Nuke Power For You!", but with so many innocent lives as potential victimsI would have to say "No Nuke For You!"

Do you believe them???

 

[Barnabas]

Do you believe them???

I'd like to, but with this many lives at stake I have to be a skeptic.

 

[Kavalan]

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8746sci2.html

force em to use thorium and then it will truly be peaceful.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Iran has a lot of oil at its disposal.
Iran does not seem particularly concerned about carbon emissions.

For those reasons, I doubt Iran is interested in nuclear technology solely for its use in power plants. I also think Iran is far more likely to use the nukes against other nations than it is to need the nukes as protection from other nations.

So I dislike the idea of Iran having nuclear capabilities of any kind in the near future. Does that mean the UN should stop Iran from developing said technology? I'm undecided. On the one hand, it seems important for there to be some restrictions on who can use such potentially disastrous stuff, but the UN will not necessarily be fair in deciding who gets it and who doesn't.

 

[bamf]

From your opening post I think it's pretty clear where you stand on the subject, but that's of no difference. I think this has the potential to be an interesting discussion.

Personally, I think it is their right to invest in nuclear power, to do so on their own terms, and without intervention. The western world wants to guide the development (or non-development) of the rest of the world, and somehow believes they are justified in doing so. If Iran tried to impose sanctions on the US or UK, it'd turn into war. The western world has the power, and does not want to give that up.

Even if Iran developed nuclear weapons, they would not use them. Iran is arguably the only independently successful country under Sharia Law. The world watches nuclear weapons and their development like a hawk. Iran knows they cannot stand up to the west in the terms of a war. Iran would be successfully invaded within a month, and their government and officials would be completely toppled, if not wiped out. If Iran has nuclear capabilities, and Israel is attacked with nuclear warfare it would be the end of Iran. The leadership of Iran is not looking to destroy itself.

The fear of terrorists claiming the weapons is also pretty far out. If Iran has nuclear weapons, they know the west will be watching them, and the second a nuclear weapon goes off Iran's metaphorical head will be served up on a golden platter. If anything, Iran is just using nuclear capabilities as a leverage tool. If they declared a nuclear-free war with Israel, the western world will watch until Israel is actually in danger, but they have proven time and time again that they can fend for themselves (with US supplied arms, of course). Iran is of no real threat to Israel. It gathers attention for their country, and they have something to finally put on the table.

Look at North Korea. There is no real talk of invasion of North Korea to keep them from acquiring nuclear arms. What threat do they pose to the west or its allies? Little. In the grand scheme of international politics, South Korea would be a sad loss, but a nuclear North Korea would finally be a viable local threat to China. Sacrifice South Korea to weaken China.

Also, think about it from the west's standpoint. Of course they are going to say Iran is a threat. The "ally" countries around Iran buy weapons from the US. Letting global fear spread of Iran and its nuclear capabilities lines the pockets of war-profiteerers.

Even if Iran becomes nuclear, they are of no real risk, but the global fear it will cause means money for the arms-manufacturers.

 

[Razare]

National Sovereignty only truly exists for nations that possess nuclear weapons. What the United States has done to Afghanistan and Iraq proves this.

If you don't walk like a duck in a row, you may very well be conquered by a large nation.

The only possible way you can avoid that fate with any certainty is to possess nuclear weapons. The Iranian government is not stupid and they know this, so they're developing their nuclear weapon program the only way they can, by saying it's peaceful.

They have to, because ultimately, their government does not walk like a duck in a row. Their only real protection is their tie with Russia, but those sort of ties aren't always certain enough to guarantee long-term sovereignty.

 

[Razare]

mf - You don't understand the military advantage a nuclear weapon presents. If Iran simply had a hundred nuclear missiles that could be launched at a moments notice toward Israel, then Israel could not go to war with Iran.

Having them in sufficient numbers prevents you from being invaded. Even if they had 5 missiles, it may be enough of a deterrent.

Ultimately the calculation goes... "If we invade Iran, what are the chances they'll fire off a nuclear weapon at Israel before we can disable all the missile launching sites."

If that certainty isn't near 100%, invasion then becomes impossible. This makes them 10 times the thorn in the ass that they already are because they would never have to cave to any political pressure.

Like when they had those British soldiers unreasonably detained. Britain probably would have invaded if they never released them, but of course Iran caved to pressure. With nukes, Iran could have executed them on TV and the western world would have shrugged their shoulders.

Would you invade a country that could launch a nuclear missile into Israel and kill somewhere near 100,000 people?

----------------------

The reason there is no talk of invading North Korea is because we can't. China would not allow it. The last time we tried and succeeded, China counter-attacked. I know Chinese/American relations are much much better now, but that even presents a bigger reason why North Korea cannot be invaded.

Essentially, North Korea is a different story because they answer to China, and China tries to be friendly with us as much as they are able.

Let's say North Korea did launch a single missile or something and it hit somewhere important. We'd probably ask China to just annex the country if they wouldn't let us invade. Make it a territory of China with a more open border between North and South.

So basically the difference between Iran and North Korea is, Iran is invade-able. North Korea is not, so talk of it is off the table. Plus if you know the psychology of North Korean leaders, they're just less of a threat. They shut down their nuclear program after they negotiate with us for money and other deals. Then a couple years later they start their nuclear program again. They do this over and over. They don't give a rat's ass about having nuclear weapons, they want money and perks for agreeing to close the program.

 

[the]

Just a bit curious as to how people on this specific forum feel/think regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, so thought a small discussion would serve to better inform me as to the whereabouts of the different mindsets. First, a couple of facts:

1) Iran's leaders state they will destroy Israel.

Let them try it. I dont care if the whole Middle East kills themselves and each other.

2) Iran's leaders state the nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

I dont believe them but I think we should not be in peoples business in that way. Its too controlling. To me, we should either want them to exist on their own terms or exterminate them. I'm not for any sort of bargin-basement-deals that involve us paying them all the time to not use nuclear power.

3) Concessions are being offered Israel to stand down a military strike against Iran.

I think that is wrong. If they want to go to war let them. All we are doing is postponing the inevitable. Militant Jews and Militant Muslims were made to kill each other and anyone in their path. There is no changing that and there is no saving the people that are in the path of destruction either.

4) A nuclear attack against such a small state as Israel would basically neutralize any of those concessions being offered. They cannot protect Israel's people.

Israel needs to get their act together then.

My questions are simple and basic.
1) Do you believe Iran's statements their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only? Yes or no

No. Governments are desgned for purposes of power and power aquisition. That includes peacetime war prep.

2) Given Iran's statement they will destroy Israel, do you think concessions will make Israel's people feel all cozy and safe enough to stand down? Yes or no

No. Israel has a pretty good military and they would be fools to give that up.

I just want to see how we/you feel for future references. Thank you for your time. This will be a sixty day poll.

 

[bamf]

mf - You don't understand the military advantage a nuclear weapon presents. If Iran simply had a hundred nuclear missiles that could be launched at a moments notice toward Israel, then Israel could not go to war with Iran.

Having them in sufficient numbers prevents you from being invaded. Even if they had 5 missiles, it may be enough of a deterrent.

Ultimately the calculation goes... "If we invade Iran, what are the chances they'll fire off a nuclear weapon at Israel before we can disable all the missile launching sites."

If that certainty isn't near 100%, invasion then becomes impossible. This makes them 10 times the thorn in the ass that they already are because they would never have to cave to any political pressure.

Like when they had those British soldiers unreasonably detained. Britain probably would have invaded if they never released them, but of course Iran caved to pressure. With nukes, Iran could have executed them on TV and the western world would have shrugged their shoulders.

Would you invade a country that could launch a nuclear missile into Israel and kill somewhere near 100,000 people?

Of course it's a deterrent, but that does not mean they will use them. It's complete leverage. It's putting the possibility of using them on the table to illicit fear, but if they actually used them it would be their doom. Iran, regardless of nuclear capabilities, would not survive a nuclear war. The leadership of Iran does not hate Israel enough to destroy itself. If they nuked Israel, the west would nuke the hell out of them.

The west has the nukes, and as long as they keep anyone else from having them, they have the ultimate power. The thing is, what right does the west have to keep the rest of the world from developing them? The west is hardly the saviors of the world or the keepers of peace. The west does what's in their best interests.

Of course we wouldn't invade Iran if they had nuclear weapons but hadn't used them, but why should we invade them in the first place? To allow us to keep the possibility of invading them in the future?

 

[Barnabas]

Of course it's a deterrent, but that does not mean they will use them. It's complete leverage. It's putting the possibility of using them on the table to illicit fear, but if they actually used them it would be their doom. Iran, regardless of nuclear capabilities, would not survive a nuclear war. The leadership of Iran does not hate Israel enough to destroy itself. If they nuked Israel, the west would nuke the hell out of them.

The west has the nukes, and as long as they keep anyone else from having them, they have the ultimate power. The thing is, what right does the west have to keep the rest of the world from developing them? The west is hardly the saviors of the world or the keepers of peace. The west does what's in their best interests.

Of course we wouldn't invade Iran if they had nuclear weapons but hadn't used them, but why should we invade them in the first place? To allow us to keep the possibility of invading them in the future?

but why on earth would we want to give someone leverage against us(us being the west).

 

[bamf]

but why on earth would we want to give someone leverage against us(us being the west).

Because we do not control the will of the world, nor are should we be the deciding factor in what is right and wrong. We use the world for our benefit, the rest of the world has the right to defend itself against that.

 

[the]

I dont know that any Islamic country would actually drop a bomb on or near Jerusalem. If they did I think that would anger other Islamic countries very much.

 

[Barnabas]

Because we do not control the will of the world, nor are should we be the deciding factor in what is right and wrong. We use the world for our benefit, the rest of the world has the right to defend itself against that.

Your right, we don't control the will of the world or of it's people, and said people have a right to defend themselves, however the U.S. government has a charter that states it's job is to protect the people of the U.S.

This means that the U.S. government must be thinking of it's people and how to protect them, then it is only logical to take measure against possible threats to keep them from being real threats.

 

[bamf]

This means that the U.S. government must be thinking of it's people and how to protect them, then it is only logical to take measure against possible threats to keep them from being real threats.

So what do we do should Iran ignore UN sanctions? Preemptive war goes against Just War theory. Iran is no threat to the west. They would not use the weapons, only use their availability to pursue issues in favor of their country or regime.

 

[just me]

I will state where I stand for clarity. I do not believe what Iran is telling the world. That is short of saying they are lying to the world. I believe the tension in Israel will not stand down by the statements "for peaceful purposes only".

Russia and America are trying to slowly lessen their stocks of nukes, but Russia appears to be helping another country(or countries) in the development of nukes.

Pakistan is living proof how dangerous it is to possess nukes. Just ask them. As for the poll? Wish I knew how to post the second question, but

1) No
2) No

The way I feel should not sway another's feelings.

 

[Barnabas]

So what do we do should Iran ignore UN sanctions? Preemptive war goes against Just War theory. Iran is no threat to the west. They would not use the weapons, only use their availability to pursue issues in favor of their country or regime.

Iran should do what there charter compels them to do, of they believe that nuclear deterrent is a necessary measure to insure the safety of there people then they should pursue it.

Opposition with nuclear power is always a threat, or else the opposition would not have sought nuclear power.

Edit: I find this necessary

Over two hundred years ago a small group of colonies challenged the sanctions of the world super power, it led them to become the most prosperous nation on earth.

There something to be said for defiance.

 

[Razare]

The thing is, what right does the west have to keep the rest of the world from developing them? The west is hardly the saviors of the world or the keepers of peace. The west does what's in their best interests.

What right? When you talk world politics, you no longer operate on the ground of morality that exists in our daily lives. You transcend that realm and become a realist. If you don't, then your talk is fanciful nonsense.

What gives the right of any country to invade another is the right of power. Our military strength gives us this right, because this is how it has been since man's beginning.

Invading other countries to secure personal security is any country's right, not just the West's. The only difference between the West and other countries is the West has more power than most for now. This is changing; China is developing considerable power. Don't blame the one at the top for the way things have always been; the fact that compassion might even come into the USA's decision processes when it comes to national security is something to marvel at.

Of course we wouldn't invade Iran if they had nuclear weapons but hadn't used them, but why should we invade them in the first place? To allow us to keep the possibility of invading them in the future?

To stop the spread of nuclear weapons, which is a matter of national security. I agree that it's not really the USA's primary interest, but is more Israel's.

What if Iran sold a nuclear weapon to Hamas? And Hamas launched it into Israel like quite often happens? Iran would probably be blamed but they'd deny it. It could cause enough confusion for them to get away with it, especially if they had nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

Your philosophy seems to be, let every country in the world have nuclear weapons because that will achieve worldwide peace and prevent them from ever being launched. If you know anything about the nature of man, and how the worst things often occur, then you should realize how foolish this view is.

 

[just me]

So what do we do should Iran ignore UN sanctions? Preemptive war goes against Just War theory. Iran is no threat to the west. They would not use the weapons, only use their availability to pursue issues in favor of their country or regime.

I wish I could believe they would not use the weapons I do not believe they are not producing. I think it unreasonable to threaten the destruction of Israel, yet they offer that with regularity. Jerusalem may not be a target.

Good night all. Hope this thread stays somewhat peaceful, as it is meant for peaceful purposes.