Should Iran be allowed Nuclear Power?

Pacifist Pigeon

Does anyone know if I'll be able to get the Iran War on Netflix?

SeanW

No

Ok I think there is a little confious here.

Nuclear power =/= nuclear weapons.

You can have one without the other - many countries have nuclear electricity without nuclear weapons. E.g. Canada, Scandinavian countries, etc.

You can also have nuclear weapons without civilian nuclear electricity. Israel has no nuclear power stations and I don't think Pakistan has either. But both are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

As far as I am concerned, if the Iranians can prove that they just want cilivian nuclear electricity, I say let them have at it.

Weapons ... eh, crazed Islamic dictators who would welcome armegaddeon (I can never spell that) + nuclear weapons = not a good mix

Sean Bateman

Some people think that Iran's nuclear power programme is just a front for a nuclear weapons programme.

Sure let's just see what happens...

Yeah right - If Islamic jihadist nations are permitted to obtain nuclear weapons, we're looking at World War III and the annihilation of billions of people.

The US should strike now. Destroy the Iranians' nuclear research and development facilities. The world will thank them for it.

paddyandy

If the posters here on this thread were living close to Iran they would have a very different opinion .They obviously don't and if they were thoughtful and did live near Iran they might understand that there is no such thing as a localised Nuclear Explosion and if it does happen and the winds are unfavourable then the fallout can reach us here in Ireland .Iran has an extremely heady mix of Islam and politics unlike any other country .Rage blinds reason and there can be no winners because Nuked Land Stays Useless for a very long time perhaps a million years .What or where is the PRIZE ???? Should i bother with this thread at all !!

don ramo

No

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Once again, the problem isn't with Iran building reactors, it's with them enriching uranium.

yeah but even if they get a nuke off, 200 would rain down on them before theirs got 100 foot of the launch pad:D:D:D

hatrickpatrick

No

Sean Bateman wrote: »

The loony liberal left are at their most dangerous when it comes to subjects like this.

Do you even understand why the left generally sympathizes? Did you watch the video over the page?

Under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to have nuclear capabilities.

Why? Do you feel like giving a reason, or are you going to continue the trend of "because our politicians say so"?
Explain precisely why Iran having nuclear weapons would be such a catastrophic event? I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be, I am suggesting that I have never actually seen a real argument against it. Ever. People say it shouldn't happen, no one ever explains, in detail, why.

The US should attack Iran now and destroy their capability. Do it now. Use bunker busters, napalm, whatever's required.

Again, why?

Anyone opposing such a course of action needs their head examined.

It would help if you justified the course of action first, of course...

hatrickpatrick

No

paddyandy wrote: »

If the posters here on this thread were living close to Iran they would have a very different opinion .They obviously don't and if they were thoughtful and did live near Iran they might understand that there is no such thing as a localised Nuclear Explosion and if it does happen and the winds are unfavourable then the fallout can reach us here in Ireland .Iran has an extremely heady mix of Islam and politics unlike any other country .Rage blinds reason and there can be no winners because Nuked Land Stays Useless for a very long time perhaps a million years .What or where is the PRIZE ???? Should i bother with this thread at all !!

Are you familiar with the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction?
I have never seen a decent argument as to why this wouldn't apply in this case. As far as I'm concerned, for Iran to nuke any of its neighbors would be national suicide.
On the other hand, if they had nukes, then anyone attacking them would also be committing national suicide.
Seems more defensive than anything else. And given Iran's horrific past oe being used as a pawn by the West, they have reasons to be defensive. The West claims to support democracy in Iran now - but how long until the Iranians elect the "wrong" government again and Western intelligence steps in to subvert a democratic decision for their own purposes?

Maybe they'll think twice about it if they're staring down the barrel of a nuclear ICBM, no?

hatrickpatrick

No

discus wrote: »

I see the majority have voted yes.

Well, thankfully it's not a democratic decision. The decision makers will probably sanction Iran into the ground to prevent it, and if they don't, they'll just end up bombing them into the stone age.

You think the catholic church was bad when it had power? See what a nuclear-capable islamic state will do if it takes offence to something.

Are you suggesting Iran would nuke the Netherlands the next time they published an "offensive" cartoon?
You don't think their strive for nukes has anything to do with not wanting to be threatened by the rest of the world?
When bush was in power, he named Iran as part of the "axis of evil", which after the invasion of Iraq began to look more and more like a "to do" list of targets. It's been well documented in this thread that before this, Iran was repeatedly f*cked over by the West, again and again, in the name of taking other people's energy supplies.

I sure as hell would want to know I had a trump card deterrent in that kind of situation - not to attack anyone unprovoked, but to ensure they stay the hell out of my country and don't try to breach my sovereignty again.
What goes around comes around. The situation in Iran today, just like the previous situation in Iraq, exists because of national governments worldwide dealing only with eachother and using the ordinary people in each country as irrelevant pawns. This is what happens when you backstab eachother constantly. This is what happens when you decide that what rightfully belongs to someone else, is something you can just take, because you want it.

Until I see some actual, real evidence that Iran is crazy enough to nuke a neighbor where the fallout would almost certainly destroy Iran too, I will continue to sympathize with their desire to make sure nobody dares to cross them anymore.

SeanW

No

The fact that they're religious fruitcakes who would probably welcome armageddeon has no bearing on your MAD theory? MAD worked with the Russians because they were atheist. It wouldn't work with a nuclear ARMED Iran.

FruitLover

NinjaK wrote: »

They are a peaceful country

This is the same Iran that hangs gay teenagers and stones adulterers to death we're talking about, isn't it?

Kepti

SeanW wrote: »

The fact that they're religious fruitcakes who would probably welcome armageddeon has no bearing on your MAD theory? MAD worked with the Russians because they were atheist. It wouldn't work with a nuclear ARMED Iran.

Do you think Iran are trying the country version of suicide by cop?

SeanW

No

I'm not sure, but if an Islamic lunatic gets nukes they're probably going to want to bring about the End Times so that all the pious Muslims get to go to Heaven. It's a safe bet they'd start by nuking Israel.

don ramo

No

really the first thing a nation that has just obtained nuclear enery is to start world war dead, to say 3 would mean thered be a 4th, there wouldnt be a 4th, thats it, done, World War Dead, end of days, maybe one or two nations might survive, hell maybe even 50 would, but we would be set back a few hundred years, and would be living on a planet that would be minimum 50% nuclear wasteland,

somehow i dont think thats on anyone mind, as much as people would like to think it is, its the last thing anyone is thinking,

SlyBacon93

No

Since when did the question of iran having nuclear power have anything to do with the fact that they are an Islamic state...religion has nothing to do with this poll so keep your opinions to yourself

SeanW

No

SlyBacon93 wrote: »

Since when did the question of iran having nuclear power have anything to do with the fact that they are an Islamic state...religion has nothing to do with this poll so keep your opinions to yourself

Let me clarify, since this has drifted off topic.

Peaceful civilian nuclear electricity == let them have at it.

Nuclear weapons == different story as far as I am concerned.

SlyBacon93

No

SeanW wrote: »

SlyBacon93 wrote: »

Since when did the question of iran having nuclear power have anything to do with the fact that they are an Islamic state...religion has nothing to do with this poll so keep your opinions to yourself

Let me clarify, since this has drifted off topic.

Peaceful civilian nuclear electricity == let them have at it.

Nuclear weapons == different story as far as I am concerned.

I understand this, what I don't understand is that what your remarks about the Muslim religion have to do with this. All I am saying is keep your religious views to yourself as they have nothing to do with the thread

smokedeels

SlyBacon93 wrote: »

Since when did the question of iran having nuclear power have anything to do with the fact that they are an Islamic state...religion has nothing to do with this poll so keep your opinions to yourself

Their political system is based around it. We are asking if Iran can be trusted to have the means to build a nuclear bomb. Religion has everything to do with it when it informs their military and foreign policies.

wes

No

For those argueing against Iran on a Religous basis, I should point out the following that I read on the informed comment blog recently:

Active Nuclear Arsenals and Iran’s Absence

--SNIP--
Iranian supreme theocrat, Ali Khamenei, has given a fatwa that nuclear bombs are forbidden in Islamic law, and it is likely that Iran does not want to construct an actual nuclear weapon.
--SNIP--

As several people pointed out that Iran is a religous regime, and that mean that a ban on Nuclear weapons such as this, essentially means that per there Religion they can't have nuclear weapons.

Now, I fully expect those who were talking about Iran Religous credentials to suddendly ignore them, in light of this, but imho you can't have it both ways. So unless Khameni rescinds his Fatwa, Iran is in all probablity not actively building a nuclear weapon.

NinjaK

No

wes wrote: »

For those argueing against Iran on a Religous basis, I should point out the following that I read on the informed comment blog recently:



As several people pointed out that Iran is a religous regime, and that mean that a ban on Nuclear weapons such as this, essentially means that per there Religion they can't have nuclear weapons.

Now, I fully expect those who were talking about Iran Religous credentials to suddendly ignore them, in light of this, but imho you can't have it both ways. So unless Khameni rescinds his Fatwa, Iran is in all probablity not actively building a nuclear weapon.

Interesting. I wonder what the Israeli war mongers will make of this.

NinjaK

No

More proof, from a US General no less

US Gen. Dempsey: Iran rational actor, not after nukes

A top US military official has described Iran as a rational actor in the international arena, stating that the Islamic Republic is not after producing nuclear weapons.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/227606.html

wes

No

NinjaK wrote: »

Interesting. I wonder what the Israeli war mongers will make of this.

That Fatwa has essentially been ignored, by Western government and media as well.

Kepti

The Guardian - UN inspectors arrive in Tehran for nuclear talks

"I believe it is unclear [that Iran would assemble a bomb] and on that basis, I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option was upon us," said General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US military's joint chiefs of staff.

He said he believed the Iranian government was a "rational actor".

Those of you who have clamored for war with Iran in this thread, can you explain why this man is wrong?

NinjaK

No

Kepti wrote: »

The Guardian - UN inspectors arrive in Tehran for nuclear talks



Those of you who have clamored for war with Iran in this thread, can you explain why this man is wrong?

You can bombard these people will as much facts as your able, they will not change their mind that Iran is some sort of a bad guy, like an evil villain. The Murdoch/Jewish/British press has poisoned their little minds.

brimal

NinjaK wrote: »

You can bombard these people will as much facts as your able, they will not change their mind that Iran is some sort of a bad guy, like an evil villain. The Murdoch/Jewish/British press has poisoned their little minds.

The Jewish press? Please explain.


There was another more popular thread on After Hours regarding Iran and all things nuclear, but you weren't happy with the voting/comments and start another.

'This is the real thread' 'Too many warmongers on the other one'

Come off it OP. You don't want a debate, you just want to spout as much anti-West rubbish as you can (and if any of the anti-West crowd here tag along it's a bonus)

paddyandy

Looking at the poll i am reminded as so often is the case ; The Majority are always wrong .So very true throughout history ,most people were wrong about everything ..

wes

No

paddyandy wrote: »

Looking at the poll i am reminded as so often is the case ; The Majority are always wrong .So very true throughout history ,most people were wrong about everything ..

The words of many a despot through out history no doubt....

Sunnyisland

NinjaK wrote: »

You can bombard these people will as much facts as your able, they will not change their mind that Iran is some sort of a bad guy, like an evil villain. The Murdoch/Jewish/British press has poisoned their little minds.

As someone who follows this topic closely,I find your comment very insulting and not doing your debate any good at all.Suppose there are bigots on both sides eh :rolleyes:

Warper

No

Personally no country should be allowed to have them but if gung-ho countries like the US and Israel have them, then everyone should be entitled to have them incl. Iran. Complete hypocrisy from the US and Israel regarding Iran's supposed nuclear development. We all know what happened in Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction - murder.

cosanostra

No

Remember USA are the only country to ever kill using Nuclear weapons, so if anyone should have restrictions on them it is USA. But they have the cheek to tell other countries they're not allowed Nuclear power incase they manufacture bombs while they have a substantial stockpile that could wipe out mankind

Manic Moran

No

Kepti wrote: »

The Guardian - UN inspectors arrive in Tehran for nuclear talks

"I believe it is unclear [that Iran would assemble a bomb] and on that basis, I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option was upon us," said General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US military's joint chiefs of staff.

He said he believed the Iranian government was a "rational actor".

Those of you who have clamored for war with Iran in this thread, can you explain why this man is wrong?

Please note that he leaves open the possibility that they would assemble a bomb, neither does he rule out the possibility of a requirement for military action in the future. Basically he was opining "no hurry, but you still want to make sure"

NTM