Should Iran be allowed Nuclear Power?

NinjaK

I think this is the real poll. The other one is just scare mongering and war propaganda. The real issue is should Iran be allowed Nuclear Power? Do they, as an Independent state, have a right? Should the west have a right to tell countries they do not have the right to it?
Personally I have no problem with Iran having Nuclear Power, why would I? Iran has never done anything to Ireland or Irish people.

Sauve

Have you no concern for anybody outside of Ireland?
Or do you really believe that as long as we stay 'friends' with Iran then we won't be affected by whatever they may choose to do with their nuclear power?

Plazaman

I think every country should have at least one Nuclear Bomb..... you know, just in case. Begs I not keeping it at my house.

dlofnep

No

Sauve wrote: »

Have you no concern for anybody outaide of Ireland?
Or do you really believe that as long as we stay 'friends' with Iran then we won't be affected by whatever they may choose to do with their nuclear power?

No, I am not concerned with whatever the may choose to do with their nuclear power. (Like powering their infrastructure). They have no intentions of attacking anyone, and have never done so in the past.

m@cc@

No

Nu-clee-ar. It's pronounced nu-clee-ar.

NinjaK

No

Sauve wrote: »

Have you no concern for anybody outside of Ireland?
Or do you really believe that as long as we stay 'friends' with Iran then we won't be affected by whatever they may choose to do with their nuclear power?

When was the last time Iran invaded or bombed a country? Dont mention Iran Iraq war because Iran was invaded. They are a peaceful country. The idea they will drop a nuclear bomb is fairy land.

Sauve

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I am not concerned with whatever the may choose to do with their nuclear power. (Like powering their infrastructure). They have no intentions of attacking anyone, and have never done so in the past.

How can you say that they won't change their minds once they're handed the power to do so?

Sauve

NinjaK wrote: »

When was the last time Iran invaded or bombed a country? Dont mention Iran Iraq war because Iran was invaded. They are a peaceful country. The idea they will drop a nuclear bomb is fairy land.

No I know that they're peaceful, I suppose my argument may be a little off topic.
What I'm getting at is once you give a country the power to do these things, who's to say they won't change their tactics. This applies the world over though, not just Iran.

Canis Lupus

m@cc@ wrote: »

Nu-clee-ar. It's pronounced nu-clee-ar.

Wessel.

FrostyJack

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I am not concerned with whatever the may choose to do with their nuclear power. (Like powering their infrastructure). They have no intentions of attacking anyone, and have never done so in the past.

Hmmm hundreds of dead US and British soldiers in Iraq may disagree. Hear any news from Thailand or India recently? Ever hear of the Northern Alliance? They do not have the power to have a direct war with most countries so that isn't their threat. Covert wars they have been doing for years. I think the chances of them ever using a nuke are almost nil. The whole reason the current situation has arrived is because of US foreign policy in the recent past. By the way the Iran president has less power than ours, so stuff he says and does mean feck all.

dlofnep

No

Sauve wrote: »

How can you say that they won't change their minds once they're handed the power to do so?

They could potentially put a man on the moon, but I deal with reality.. and in reality, they are not going to give the likes of the US and Israel an excuse to attack them, by launching a pre-meditated attack.

Iran has a long history of not attacking other nations. Which is not a record the rest of the countries in that region can say they have.

dlofnep

No

FrostyJack wrote: »

Hmmm hundreds of dead US and British soldiers in Iraq may disagree.

Perhaps you'd care to cite evidence that Iran is responsible for 'hundreds of dead US and British soldiers in Iraq'. And not random commentary.

FrostyJack wrote: »

Hear any news from Thailand or India recently?

Sure did - Heard any evidence that it was sanctioned by Iranian authorities?

Sauve

dlofnep wrote: »

They could potentially put a man on the moon, but I deal with reality.. and in reality, they are not going to give the likes of the US and Israel an excuse to attack them, by launching a pre-meditated attack.

Iran has a long history of not attacking other nations. Which is not a record the rest of the countries in that region can say they have.

Yeah I can see your point....I would just be nervous of giving a country that has been attacked the means to retaliate. Whether they ever intend to use them or not, it just doesnt sit well with me.
I'll agree it's an extremely minimal risk though.

Sunnyisland

Havent voted in the poll yet as I am still undecided,For me its a very complicated situation and at this moment I would not trust Iran, I be back.

Kepti

FrostyJack wrote: »

Hmmm hundreds of dead US and British soldiers in Iraq may disagree.

How can dead people agree or disagree with anything?

Sauve

Kepti wrote: »

How can dead people agree or disagree with anything?

Don't be so disrespectful.

dlofnep

No

Sauve wrote: »

Yeah I can see your point....I would just be nervous of giving a country that has been attacked the means to retaliate. Whether they ever intend to use them or not, it just doesnt sit well with me.
I'll agree it's an extremely minimal risk though.

The question is in relation to nuclear power - not nuclear weapons. As it stands, I don't believe it would be in the interests of anyone for another state to obtain nuclear weapons, Iran included. But that doesn't mean that I believe Iran has nuclear weapons, nor does it mean that I believe they would use them if they had them. Most states have nuclear weapons as a deterrent more than anything.

Sunnyisland

dlofnep wrote: »

The question is in relation to nuclear power - not nuclear weapons. As it stands, I don't believe it would be in the interests of anyone for another state to obtain nuclear weapons, Iran included. But that doesn't mean that I believe Iran has nuclear weapons, nor does it mean that I believe they would use them if they had them. Most states have nuclear weapons as a deterrent more than anything.

I agree with this but can we trust Iran ?

Ellis Dee

NinjaK wrote: »

I think this is the real poll. The other one is just scare mongering and war propaganda. The real issue is should Iran be allowed Nuclear Power? Do they, as an Independent state, have a right? Should the west have a right to tell countries they do not have the right to it?
Personally I have no problem with Iran having Nuclear Power, why would I? Iran has never done anything to Ireland or Irish people.

Should Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, Poland, Slovenia, the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, China, Japan, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Lithuania, Croatia and a good few others have nuclear power? Answers on a postcard please.:rolleyes:

Clue: they all have nuclear power stations already. Iran has one as well.

dlofnep

No

realies wrote: »

I agree with this but can we trust Iran ?

Who is we, and trust them to do what? You're going to have to be a bit more specific. Can Ireland trust Iran not to use nuclear weapons on Ireland? Absolutely. Can 'we' as an international community trust that Iran's nuclear ambitions do not include weapons? Probably not. Can 'we' expect that Iran would ever use nuclear weapons? Very doubtful.

I prefer to deal in specifics. That way, we can have a meaningful conversation.

dlofnep

No

To put it simpler - I don't see any evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and if they were I don't believe that they would aspire to use them - but would rather see them as a symbol in the form of a detterent from an attack by Israel and the US. I don't see Iran as some moral, ethical force in the world. But I trust in their own self-interests to not cause a dilemma in the area.

Mike 1972

I dont think ANY country should have Nuclear power.

Besides when they have that oil why do they even want it

dlofnep

No

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I dont think ANY country should have Nuclear power.

Besides when they have that oil why do they even want it

Oil is a finite resource, and they make money selling it

But I'm not in favour of nuclear power either. But there is a certain hypocrisy in one state with nuclear power dictating to another on whether it can have it or not.

NinjaK

No

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I dont think ANY country should have Nuclear power.

Besides when they have that oil why do they even want it

Thats not the question, do they have the RIGHT to have Nuclear power..

Seriously, can you not think of a reason for having Nuclear Power over oil? They export their oil, oil is a limited resource etc..

Sunnyisland

dlofnep wrote: »

Who is we, and trust them to do what? You're going to have to be a bit more specific. Can Ireland trust Iran not to use nuclear weapons on Ireland? Absolutely. Can 'we' as an international community trust that Iran's nuclear ambitions do not include weapons? Probably not. Can 'we' expect that Iran would ever use nuclear weapons? Very doubtful.

I prefer to deal in specifics. That way, we can have a meaningful conversation.

The we is as us in the west, where we have the freedom do more or less what we will and say what we will unlike the Iranian people.If the Iranian rulers does not trust its own people in that they crush opposition,control media and Internet etc How can the west trust the Iranian goverment ?

Sunnyisland

dlofnep wrote: »

To put it simpler - I don't see any evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and if they were I don't believe that they would aspire to use them - but would rather see them as a symbol in the form of a detterent from an attack by Israel and the US. I don't see Iran as some moral, ethical force in the world. But I trust in their own self-interests to not cause a dilemma in the area.

The UN disagrees

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=un%20says%20iran&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2012-02-17%2Fun-s-ban-says-onus-on-iran-to-show-peaceful-atomic-intent-1-.html&ei=u3U_T-vdGZC1hAeUy_C_BQ&usg=AFQjCNGw9OplOEcpb4zNMxDwkLWhqvSV1A

Sunnyisland

Have to go out now, laters.

dlofnep

No

realies wrote: »

The we is as us in the west, where we have the freedom do more or less what we will and say what we will unlike the Iranian people.If the Iranian rulers does not trust its own people in that they crush opposition,control media and Internet etc How can the west trust the Iranian goverment ?

That's an argument for why the Iranian people themselves should not. It is not an argument for why the 'West' should not.

dlofnep

No

realies wrote: »

The UN disagrees

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=un%20says%20iran&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2012-02-17%2Fun-s-ban-says-onus-on-iran-to-show-peaceful-atomic-intent-1-.html&ei=u3U_T-vdGZC1hAeUy_C_BQ&usg=AFQjCNGw9OplOEcpb4zNMxDwkLWhqvSV1A

Actually, it doesn't disagree. It has asked Iran to demonstrate that it's nuclear program is peaceful, but that in itself is not evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

The Bishop Basher

Who gave us the right to decide what another sovereign nation can or can't do ? Or are we just falling in behind the most powerful terrorist nation on earth and the only ones who have ever actually used atomic weapons on mass centres of
Innocent populations and continue to deny civili liberties and kill and maim all in the name of peace ?

FrostyJack

dlofnep wrote: »

Perhaps you'd care to cite evidence that Iran is responsible for 'hundreds of dead US and British soldiers in Iraq'. And not random commentary.

What evidence would you like? I'm sure you know I don't have access to exploded/recovered IED's nor do I have access to interogation data or detainees. What have is multi source info from respected journalists and from people on the ground. Iran have all but said they would do it, I am looking for the statement they issued. By the way I take nothing from Fox news or the likes, most things they say the opposite is probably the truth.

I think the quote is featured in this series (very balanced documentary)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iar_1OKOmc

Sure did - Heard any evidence that it was sanctioned by Iranian authorities?

Well unless the Mossad has the ones captured attackers families tied up or they are some fringe group using Iran as justification for the attacks, it seems it was them. Didn't one escape to Tehran? I am sure the Iranian authorities will hand her over since they had nothing to do with it.

FrostyJack

dlofnep wrote: »

To put it simpler - I don't see any evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and if they were I don't believe that they would aspire to use them - but would rather see them as a symbol in the form of a detterent from an attack by Israel and the US. I don't see Iran as some moral, ethical force in the world. But I trust in their own self-interests to not cause a dilemma in the area.

+1

ejmaztec

I wouldn't trust most countries in that region with electrical power, let alone nuclear power, Israel included.

Solair

You'd have to wonder why a country with vast oil reserves even needs to consider nuclear power. Countries like France, Germany, Japan, the UK etc all only use it because they don't want to be dependent on oil imports.

France in particular only went heavily into nuclear after the last oil crisis.

It was coupled with projects like the TGV high speed rail network to provide alternatives to oil in transportation

for Iran or Norway, it makes little sense!

Sunnyisland

The IAEA team will arrive in Tehran Monday for talks meant to dent nearly four years of Iranian refusal to cooperate with the agency regarding allegations that Tehran has worked — or continues to work — on components of a nuclear weapons program. The planned IAEA visit to Tehran follows an inconclusive trip earlier this month. Diplomats told The Associated Press that Iran either refused or evaded requests for documents, interviews with officials and visits to sites linked to the allegations of secret weapons development.
Now if they have nothing to hide why don't just let the IAEA in and that would shut up the Israeli and western governments.

dlofnep

No

Solair wrote: »

You'd have to wonder why a country with vast oil reserves even needs to consider nuclear power. Countries like France, Germany, Japan, the UK etc all only use it because they don't want to be dependent on oil imports.

Oil is a finite resource. And why use it all up, when you could sell it and make a profit?

Solair

Remember that early UK Magnox reactors like Calder Hall at Sellafield were just modified, gas cooled plutonium production piles!

They were designed to be dual purpose, generation of electricity was just a clever use of the waste heat!

It also provided a good cover story to keep the public happy back in the 1950s.

Admittedly, modern nuclear power plants are designed to generate power, but there's more than a coincidental relationship between nuclear power and weapons production.

The chernobyl type RMBK reactors were specifically built to allow plutonium production runs too. The requirement actually resulted in a badly compromised design from a safety point of view, with dire consequences when it did go wrong resulting in steam explosions and run away reactions.

ejmaztec

Solair wrote: »

Remember that early UK Magnox reactors like Calder Hall at Sellafield were just modified, gas cooled plutonium production piles!

They were designed to be dual purpose, generation of electricity was just a clever use of the waste heat!

It also provided a good cover story to keep the public happy back in the 1950s.

Admittedly, modern nuclear power plants are designed to generate power, but there's more than a coincidental relationship between nuclear power and weapons production.

The chernobyl type RMBK reactors were specifically built to allow plutonium production runs too. The requirement actually resulted in a badly compromised design from a safety point of view, with dire consequences when it did go wrong resulting in steam explosions and run away reactions.

I think that's a given, and don't believe for a minute that a country possessing nuclear power, won't go the extra few yards for the full nuclear package.

Da Shins Kelly

It's a free country, they can do what they like with their own intelligence. In any case, I don't see them actually using nuclear weapons. It'll simply become another Cold War situation.

czx

NinjaK wrote: »

I think this is the real poll. The other one is just scare mongering and war propaganda. The real issue is should Iran be allowed Nuclear Power? Do they, as an Independent state, have a right? Should the west have a right to tell countries they do not have the right to it?
Personally I have no problem with Iran having Nuclear Power, why would I? Iran has never done anything to Ireland or Irish people.

naive, insular thinking

No

Quite frankly, when they have depleted their oil down to Egyptian levels and they will do within a couple of decades, they'll need something to keep the lights burning and things running.

The whole political issue is a diversion to hide the fact that peak oil is here and looming large.

czx

dlofnep wrote: »

Oil is a finite resource. And why use it all up, when you could sell it and make a profit?

Because it is far cheaper than developing nuclear power, not to mention the added cost of sanctions. Profit is clearly not what they're after

Solair

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that's a given, and don't believe for a minute that a country possessing nuclear power, won't go the extra few yards for the full nuclear package.

Well, other than Japan and EU countries apart from France and the UK etc which are all NATO shielded anyway and not particularly at war with anyone.

former Eastern Bloc states were nuclear shielded by the USSR back in the day and had plutonium production capabilities.

wes

No

I have yet to see a good reason for Iran to not have nuclear power, and under the non-proliferation agreement they have such a right. Now Iran needs to comply fully with inspections, and if they do, there should no question of whether they should have a right to nuclear power or not. If Iran is prevented from having nuclear power, after offering full compliance, then npt is worthless, and should be binned.

As it stands imho, much about Iran is just hype, by the same group of unapologetic war mongers who supportered the illegal war of aggression against Iraq. The fact that so many died means nothing to them, as when the US and her allies murders 1000s of people, its apparently ok, but if anyone else does the same, there pure evil. Pretty standard hypocrisy from war mongers imho.

RichieC

No

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite frankly, when they have depleted their oil down to Egyptian levels and they will do within a couple of decades, they'll need something to keep the lights burning and things running.

The whole political issue is a diversion to hide the fact that peak oil is here and looming large.

If Iran started powering it's country with nuclear power it could turn all it's oil into exports and become very wealthy and powerful. another reason the yanks won't have it. Self determination is only reserved for those deemed friendly to the US hegemony.

RichieC

No

dlofnep wrote: »

Perhaps you'd care to cite evidence that Iran is responsible for 'hundreds of dead US and British soldiers in Iraq'. And not random commentary.



Sure did - Heard any evidence that it was sanctioned by Iranian authorities?

The US media says it, of course it's true :rolleyes:

Sunnyisland

wes wrote: »

I have yet to see a good reason for Iran to not have nuclear power, and under the non-proliferation agreement they have such a right. Now Iran needs to comply fully with inspections, and if they do, there should no question of whether they should have a right to nuclear power or not. If Iran is prevented from having nuclear power, after offering full compliance, then npt is worthless, and should be binned.

Agree with this.

czx

wes wrote: »

I have yet to see a good reason for Iran to not have nuclear power, and under the non-proliferation agreement they have such a right. Now Iran needs to comply fully with inspections, and if they do, there should no question of whether they should have a right to nuclear power or not. If Iran is prevented from having nuclear power, after offering full compliance, then npt is worthless, and should be binned.

As it stands imho, much about Iran is just hype, by the same group of unapologetic war mongers who supportered the illegal war of aggression against Iraq. The fact that so many died means nothing to them, as when the US and her allies murders 1000s of people, its apparently ok, but if anyone else does the same, there pure evil. Pretty standard hypocrisy from war mongers imho.

Remember this is your 'imho'. Not everyone agrees with this view no matter how honest an opinion it is

NinjaK

No

czx wrote: »

naive, insular thinking

How is naive?

Hobbes

There are a lot of things that contradict our standards for allowing Iraq to have nuclear "power" (weapons is a different topic).

For example, people go on about a fear of Iran attacking with Nuclear weapons. Yet in the Middle east there is only one country that created a nuclear weapon by stealing secrets from America, faking the control rooms of their reactors so that UN inspectors would not realize they were creating weapons (to the point of concreting the real control rooms) and has preemptively attacked their neighbors.

Also there was no hullabaloo when Brazil got Nuclear power a few years back.

There are more unstable regimes then Iran, and Iran is not actively attacking other countries.

Add to that we already have weapons in existence that are on par with the same level of destruction as nukes, and as shown years ago you only need a box cutters to create mayhem.

So should Iran get Nuclear power? If it is used for power, I can't see it issue with it. Nuclear weapons is a different question and personally I don't believe anyone should have them.

AlmightyCushion

RichieC wrote: »

If Iran started powering it's country with nuclear power it could turn all it's oil into exports and become very wealthy and powerful. another reason the yanks won't have it.

America doesn't have a problem with Iran having nuclear power they just want Iran to stop enriching uranium because then they will be able to make weapons grade uranium. America has no problem with other countries doing the enriching on Irans behalf but Iran doesn't want this.