nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

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

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

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

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

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.

Galway K9

I think this thread should be called "should USA be allowed Nuclear Weapons!?":(

tdv123

Galway K9 wrote: »

I think this thread should be called "should USA be allowed Nuclear Weapons!?":(

That would be a bit misleading to the content in the thread.

Galway K9

tdv123 wrote: »

That would be a bit misleading to the content in the thread.

Just like the content in the media about this issue

discus

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.

RichieC

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

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.

Yes, I read the main stream media too...

Agricola

Nuclear power yes, weapons no.
Ideally, nuclear disarmament would have defined dates and be agreed upon by all nations that have them.
Its bad enough when a democratically elected president has control of enough nuclear power to end the planet, there is no way I'd trust nuclear weapons with an Islamic dictatorship with a giant chip on its shoulder.

brimal

I am a supporter of nuclear energy and think if civilisation is to progress we must harness the power of the atom.

However, I think most Islamic regimes shouldn't be trusted with nuclear energy as they obviously don't value the lives of their neighbours given their appalling human rights abuses on their own people.

Once they start behaving like a modern civilisation should, then I will have no problem with them, including Iran, having nuclear energy.

Sisko

I certainly understand how hypocritical it is for countries such as the US to sabre rattle at those that want to build nukes but ultimately it doesn't matter what country it is, I'm completely against any country developing nuclear weapons.

I do however disagree with nations who use nuclear power telling others not to use it.

Regarding peoples opinions that Iran will randomly attack other countries with nukes...

Iran is a pretty ****ed up country... don't get me wrong. But in fairness to it, its hatred of the west is pretty justified if you look how the west has treated it over the past...50 years or so. As messed up a country as it is, its not attacked anyone.

Its far more likely Israel or the US would fire the fist shot of anything did go down. One simply has to look at past events to know this.

I seriously hope nothing does kick off. The world is getting far less stable , an all out war with Iran will very bad news for everyone.

We should all be hoping "the west" and Iran take steps to improve relations. Currently both sides are like two stubborn ignorant bullies pushing each other back and forth until eventually they'll end up setting the entire school on fire.

smegmar

I think the real question should be

"Do we have the right to regulate who uses nuclear power?"

Nuclear power is nuclear power. We have no right to decide who has it and who uses it, in the same way we cannot decide who has chemistry and uses it to make medicine or Narcotics.

I don't believe Iran is as reckless as America would like us to think. They want the bomb, but they already know Israel has many more then them. They are NOT going to start an unwinnable war that would wipe out their country. I think they only want the deterrence against an American/Israeli ground attack. Already the news and television is filled with suggestions that America will attack Iran next. Once they have the bomb, they know this is not going to happen.

We have no right to say who has nuclear technology, especially America, the only country to ever use a bomb aggressively against civilian targets (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). I say let Iran have the bomb, and treat them with respect. Welcome them to the Nuclear club, but remind them "with great power comes great responsibility"

smegmar