what's ur idea about iran and NUCLEUS energy ?
96621
The idea to contain nuclear proliferation is to have as few countries as possible have atomic weapons.  On the other hand any country can use nuclear energy for electric production.  A number of countries will assist other countries in constructing a peace nuclear energy plant.\n\nThe problem occurs when a country wants to develop their own nuclear industry, purportedly for peaceful purposes and their government is not stable and their plans for such development are clearly for weapons development.  Iran falls into this latter category.\n\nRussia has offered to develop for them (on Russian soil) the nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes and Iran has turned this down.  They want nuclear weapons and they already have the missile systems which deliver them at least as far as Europe.  They support the destruction of Israel and it is a surety that if they had such weapons they would use them.\n\nThey will be helped to have atomic energy plants for peaceful purposes, they will not be allowed to have an atomic weapons development program.  .
248178
A nuclear power station in Iran is not bad. However the 'fuel' (enriched uranium or plutonium) can be used for composing an atomic bomb. The politicians are afraid for that. So do I.
578990
Iran has oil.  Oil can be used to produce electricity.  Iran claims that they only want nuclear power for electricity.  It doesn't add up.\n\nNorth Korea has no oil and wants nuclear power for electricity.  It is a more realistic claim on its need.
658316
i guess Iran has a right to build nuclear reactors and also if needed nuclear bombs! if US & other western powers can possess it, then why should they maintain a double-standards in askinm other countries from not having it. They let India have it simply bcos it serves their foreign interets. Iran should go ahead with it! FYI, I am an Indian.
60763
Let me begin by saying that my wife's cousin married an Iranian so I have nothing against anybody on an individual basis.  However, I take issue w/ the Iranian people for electing a rhetoric spewing, inflaming anti-semite for "President".  \n\nFurthermore, I cannot understand how the government of a country rich in petroleum oil would want to develop nuclear energy for "peaceful means" after announcing to the world that Israel should be "wiped off the map"?  This theocratic government w/ absolute power over its people needs to be "wiped off" from rule and its citizens re-educated on how to properly co-exist w/ the rest of the world in harmony.
459616
Personally I do not think that we need to go nuclear on anyone. Iran is a Middle Eastern country that we should not have involvement in. This country (US) is great on spreading democracy but other than oil what is our interest there? Why in the world do we need to be making everyone do our bidding? We need to focus in this country on how to improve our own job situations, education, over population, excessive oil use, and  focus on our country not theirs. That is my opinion.
812881
Iran = has oil\nUS = wants oil
226396
Iran has announced that they are going to open an oil market that opperates on the Euro.  That's bad for America because the US dollar is currently the primary currency for international oil trade.  So the United States has announced that Iran plans to have nuclear weapons.  How convenient.\n\ntaz: That's exactly what the US government wants you to think.  It's called propaganda.  Keep in mind that eveything that government agencies say they say for a reason.  They rarely just tell the straight out truth, and the current administration has a particularly notable history of lying.  You should always think about why they're saying what they're saying.
279890
1. The "ambition" of Iran developing its nuclear prorgam is:\n\n   a. Develop nuclear weapons. In all likelyhood North Korea is/will be helping them in this endeavor...since Iran helped N.K. develop their Taepo-Dong ICBMs. They would be developing such capnilities because:\n\n     (1) Be a significant power in the region.\n     (2) Deter Sunni led countries from thinking about \n         trying to fight them.\n     (3) Send a message to the USA..."Your days of being \n         the top dog are nearing an end.\n   \n    b. Develop nuclear power as an energy means. They could also sell excess power to neigboring countries.  \n\n2. "Iran got the itch to become a nuclear power so it too, can be a big player on the world stage. Because of its religious fanaticism, it would be a dangerous and unstable participant in this very exclusive club".\n  Thats the problem... such stereotypical and biased comments (whether racial, relogious, cultural) show the world how arrogant some can be... and with such an "in your face" attitude it is little wonder why many countries no longer support us. Think about this statement for a moment... if you were another country what would you think?\n\n3. "Russia is certainly not a trusted player in this scenario, nor is China. If we are to maintain our status as a true world leader, we cannot allow this unstable, dangerous and troublesome country to gain any more momentum than it already has." \n   Unless we can trust other nations we might as well lock ourselves up and hide. Todays world is all about GLOBALIZATION.. where countries work together. Also, bullying other nations in order to maintain "our status as a true world leader"  is not being a leader...its just being a bully and does nothing but again but show how insecure we are. A "true" world leader means bringing nations together and working for democracy of all.\n\n4. Also, if there's any country which DEFINATELY should not have nuclear capability its North Korea... a more significant threat than Iran. Yet, whats been our policy to deter this? Give them more rice and m$$$y, then after a few months they are back at it... and so it goes...on and on. The bottom line is we should definately have smoked these jokers years ago when we drove them behind the 38th parallel and into China...now we have some nut running their country. And this is okay?\n\n5. Unless we're willing to spend the next 20-30 years fighting wars with the likes of China, Iran, North Korea and others we feel should not have nuclear capabilities...and losing several tens-of-thousands of US lives... then we need to find a way to bring them into the fold peacefully.
799162
First, if anybody believes we're going to invade either North Korea or Iran, then they are complete fools.\n\nSecond, if anybody believes that NKorea or Iran are going nuclear because of the foolish idea we'd invade them, they're even bigger fools than the complete fools.\n\nNKorea and Iran started their nuclear programs long before there was any threat from the US.\n\nWhy is the rest of the world so ignorant of simple historic fact?\n----------\nUh, what evidence? You somehow have detailed knowledge of the NKorean nuclear program? Perhaps it slowed until Clinton gave them 2 nuclear reactors.
405216
Experts say it still remains unclear how close Iran is to completing a nuclear-fuel cycle. But nuclear experts point out that Iran has proceeded with its enrichment process much faster than many expected and, despite skipping steps along the way, may have passed a point of no return in terms of rolling back its nuclear program. \n\nThe Iranians removed seals from enrichment equipment at their Natanz reactor in January and, within a span of two weeks, developed a cascade of 164 centrifuges. Given the new political facts on the ground and Iran's recent announcement, most experts admit that the most likely option now, especially if the UN Security Council fails to take strict action, is for Iran merely to freeze its nuclear program, not completely dismantle it. \n\nOthers, including the International Crisis Group, have even called for sanctioning a "limited enrichment" program, provided it is coupled with intrusive inspections. CFR President Richard Haass says in a new interview with cfr.org's Bernard Gwertzman that a very limited enrichment program could be permitted as part of a diplomatic package that combines incentives with the threat of military force. Any limited military strike, Haass argues in the FT, would not be "small or quick" and "would not remain limited for long."
14936
Khatami was a moderate and tried to get Iran to be more normal.  The current leader, President Ahmadinejad is an extremist that will lead his country into a lot of problems.  He has made comments that threatens to make the Middle East even more unstable than what it is right now.  Iran is moving forward with development of nuclear power.  Officially the want nuclear power to generate electricity, but they have a very large oil supply.  Hmmm... what do you think they want nuclear power for?
234972
A long, fantastic history...mucked up by the British when they took over the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire (after WW1, I think?) and installed a regency called the Shah.  Shia Islam predominates and the country is (effectively) run on religious grounds by a council of Ayatollahs.  It has a President who is insensitive to the outside world's viewpoint (to put it mildly) and it is currently awaiting the outcome of the UN Security Council's deliberation on its reluctance to allow the Atomic Energy Authority full and free access to its nuclear program, ostensibly for power.  Those who are mistrustful of it reckon that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons which, given it's current President's comments on Israel, is understandable if (possibly) incorrect.\n\nDo I get Best Answer?
300195
Iran has no nukes, independant inspections have proved this, they do have a few certerfuges (used to enrich uranium), and a small amount of enriched uranium... for the most part, even our government recognizes the fact that as of yet Iran doesn't have nuclear bombs... in fact, Iran is many years away from developing even a simple uranium fission bomb (in my opinion, probably 4-10 years if advancement continues at its current rate)... however, they are on "the path" to develop such devices... but as of now, the advancement of thier nuclear program depends ENTIRELY on forign technology (yea, they could eventualy build it, but it may then take them more like 30-40 years), and machienery (that is how they got centerfuges, they didn't build them)... they do have radiologicly active munitions ("uranium bullets"), but most countries do, and they are not a signifigant threat (the bullets are made from depleted Uranium)...\n\n(dependant mainly on thier design choice) They are far from developing the hardest (scientificly speaking) parts of a nuclear device, such as the "pit", which is primarily made of plutonium, the technology to machine the "lense" (high explosive charges), and the trigger.
630222
They haven't yet.  They've only produced low grade enriched uranium which, right now, could only be used to generate electricity.\n\nBut they are real close....
253985
If iran is heading for Nuclear power,then the reason is basically to start thinking of ways to produce alternate energy.They know it very well that Oil is not gonna stay there forever and now is the time,though already late but not too late,to start initiating a different source.And,its also to notice that<u just cant use the nuclear energy instantly,u have go through all the tests that goes on for years finally b4 you are actually using the product commercially.US has its own reserve of oil which is biiiig as well,but they prefer to finish off the reserve of the rest of the world first with its monopoly themes and will start rigging full fledged then.Imposing a threat alarm on Iran is nothing but gathering the world opinion to go for a war and start selling stock pile of new weapons and buying oil from Iran with lower price when UN imposes sanction after the first stage of battle finishes.US has created the environment just like the british did when they were the masters of the universe.
320615
Nuclear energy is dangerous in the hands of any nation. Contrary to popular belief proliferated by propaganda from the energy industry, there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste except launching it into outer space.  Here’s a best answer to one of my questions about the disposal of nuclear waste, “If there was (a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste) we would use nuclear energy. It is not and never was a workable energy source because of the hazards and waste."\n\nAmerica has about 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste with a half life of 5,000 years.  Our solution was to put this waste in a hole 90 miles outside Las Vegas in an earthquake prone area.\n\nWhat does Iran plan to do with their nuclear waste?