do you think it is right for U.S. to stop iran from using nuclear technology?
439450
just another example of uncle sammy telling everyone what they can and can't do. Oh well when uncle sam gets us all killed for starting to much shit it wont matter anymore anyway!
429640
The whole MAD business.  If both sides start using nuclear weapons, the world has a good chance of ending.  So, no one actually uses them.  I'm guessing if Iran actually uses them, the US won't retaliate because no one wants to use nuclear weapons.
35000
In my opinion, I don't think that it is the United States' business to meddle in Iran's Nuclear Program.  Although there is the possibility of terrorism, all I see the U.S. getting out of Iran is oil, just like Iraq.  People really are paranoid about nations with the possibility of producing Nuclear Weapons.  Again, I think Iran should be free to explore its nuclear program, for the power-saving opportunities and such. \n\nThe bottom line . . . \nIran should explore its opportunities with Nuclear Power, and the U.S should keep its nose out of Iran's business.
458954
Iran has right to have the nulcear power if us, and other countries have. There is possibility of use of nuclear power against any country from the other countreis too.
132477
Interesting question.  \n\nOn the one hand, the US and other nations rightly perceive Iran as a threat, and don't want Iran to have the power to build nuclear power plants, as this could lead to nuclear weapons.\n\nOn the other hand, Iran rightly perceives the US as a threat, and the Iranian leadership is responding to that with tough talk, and refusal to back down.  Which then feeds into other countries perceiving Iran as a threat, and it's a vicious circle.\n\nPersonally, I'm not sure what to say.  I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and it would be hard for them to have nuclear power plants without getting access to nuclear weapons technology.  The proposal that Russia refine the uranium that is used in Iranian power plants completely misses the point of the issue, which is independenc/autonomy.  \n\nUnfortunately, I think the short-term answer is a lot of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, ending in face-saving measures for all sides, and a lot of backing down.  Perhaps something like Iran stops trying to develop nuclear power, and other nations help them develop sustainable, clean energy from other sources.  Bet solar panels would be very effective over there.  In private, meanwhile, Western nations would perhaps agree to stop developing new nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons, and claim publically some other reason.  It sounds like we're giving up a lot there, but really we're only giving up things that put us at danger anyway, because it's impossible to make a nuclear plant _completely_ safe from terrorist attack, and the development of new nuclear weapons just leads to proliferation.
532696
It should not be allowed nuclear capabilities, and we should all endever to prevent this occurance, because it is not within the intrests of the Western world. I recognise the arguement that Iran is as unstable or backward as the Western press portray it to be, however a neuclear Iranian would enable it to dictate policy in the region to a much larger degree, look at North Korea for example. The West needs a weaker Iran to exploit its natural resources, we should not be apologetic about this fact, we should however be careful how we go about it. As previous events have shown, badly planned interferance is far worse than isolationism.
639892
The U.S. has not used a nuclear weapon at all, be it civililian or militarily, since Japan and the end of WWII, a MUCH different time than today.  I have heard claims, however, of people that believe the U.S. has freely, and openly been using "tactical nukes" in the Middle East.  This is not true.  What a lot of people are mentioning is known as depleted uranium.  While it's not exactly the greatest stuff on Earth, it is far from what some believe it is to be--a type of nuclear weapon.  It's actually used in many civilian applications as well.\n\nhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/\n\nAs far as the U.S. having weapons, it's known that we have decreased our arsenal, but at the same time, still have a large amount.  Is it possible that someone could get a hold of them?  Sure, I would suppose, but why bother the U.S. and the military that is surely guarding our stockpile when you could get it for a price just by asking in some parts of the world.  \n\nThe United States will forever maintain a nuclear arsenal for strategic purposes.  It is impossible to believe that if we took the lead and destryoed every one that we had, that the rest of the world would follow suit.  We'd be left unprotected, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction--one of the main reasons the Cold War went the way it did--would be eliminated, leaving us naked and extremely vulnerable.  We maintain them anymore as defense, though I truly believe that in this political climate, we will never see the day that the U.S. fires an offensive nuclear attack...I think defensive may even be a stretch.  \n\nThe reason that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons is simple.  They have made their intentions known, and I truly believe that it is simply a matter of time before they place one on top of a missile and fire one into Israel, and one into Iraq (to wipeout any remaining U.S. and coalition forces).  While some believe that Iran is bluffing, and claim that they do not have the technology, I'll leave the bluffing to the poker players, and take the threat of a nuclear weapon coming out of Iran in the near future as a very serious one.
323620
I am thinking that we should stop being racist and arrogant.\nI am also thinking that we are not in charge of the universe.\nI am also thinking that if we have the right to have nuclear arms so should they.\n\nAfter all, we are not better than anyone else.\nAfter all, Iran is far less dangerous than the US ehich already has its own nuclear weapons.\n\nIn the last 50 years Iran has attacked exactly zero countries. In fact, through US enccouragement it was attacked by our former clients, the Iraqis.\nThe US has attacked Iraq, Vietnam, Guatemala, Grenada, Korea, El Salvador, Cuba, Panama, Egypt, and the list goes on.\n\nMaybe we should get rid of our own nuclear weapons before we ask others to do. We dont want to be hypocrites, right?\n\nBy the way, Iranians have never claimed or said they are developing nuclear weapons. Only the US has made this claim. And I sure beleive what W and Cheney say, right? ;-)
482251
The US doesn't WANT to bomb Iran, however, the US also does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  If other efforts to get Iran to stop their nuclear development program fails, the US will feel it has no choice but to destroy the Iranian nuclear program by force.\n\nHope that isn't too long-winded for you.
1095327
I think we shouldn't give up diplomatic efforts until a) it is clear  that diplomatic efforts won't work or b) we are convinced that Iran is just using the delay to press full speed ahead towards a weapons program.\n\nHowever, from what I hear from the EU as well as the US, b) isn't far away, unfortunately.
1067426
I think that all countries should disarm. That is not going to happen at least in my lifetime, so the next best thing would be to stop further development of nuclear weapons. Iran has been offered nuclear technology and nuclear reactors for energy generation and has so far rejected this offer. Iran appears to be more interested in weapons development than nuclear technology for peaceful purposes or it would accept technology from the rest of the world and suspend its own internal research. I hope this disagreement between countries will not end at the unfortunate possible outcome which currently has us in Iraq and Afghanistan but as observations will show it is entirely probable  rather than not.
457093
Yes, Seneca said that.  Interesting that you would quote him. Do you know what his point was in saying "Be careful that your enemies dont get your weapons"?  Sounds a lot like that quote is very much in support of limiting nuclear proliferation Would it be best if nobody had nukes?  In the 50 years before nuclear weapons were invented, over 100 million people were killed in wars.  And in the 60+ years since, is that true?  If the US destroyed all of it's nuclear weapons, do you seriously believe this would end the problem?  That countries like North Korea and Iran would generously quite trying to build them?  The US, along with the EU, is trying to stop other countries from building nuclear weapons.  Are you trying to say that because the US, France, and the UK, among others, have nuclear weapons, that they should not try to stop proliferation?  Are you saying that the US and those other countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, and thus would miraculously cause everyone else to stop building them?  Think about it-the US is hated by many powerful countries.  If the US got rid of their nuclear weapons, would that tend to make those countries more eager, or less, to build a weapon that, once the US had none, could aid these other countries in actually defeating the US on a battlefield?  Think through your argument- The US having nuclear weapons may be a problem, but it is unrelated to nuclear proliferation.  And, the US is not leading the battle to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the EU is.
603461
The US does not ban other countries from nuclear power if we know that the country will not use their power for evil use. Like nuking other countries for no reason.
1163388
Sure.As long as other countries have the right to nuclear energy,so should Iran.If the Iranian nuclear program is a threaten then so is USA's program and of all the other countries who use nuclear energy.
355309
It's not just America that wants Iran to stop producing atomic material. When the Iranian president says he'll wipe Israel off the face of the earth, it's bigger than just a national problem.
799616
US and all other countries having nukes should destroy them and destroy all their nuclear facilities and prove to the world that they do not have any nukes anymore and no capability to build anymore. This would provide a moral and ethical ground to demand from anyone, not just Iran, stoppage of nuclear weapons development.
505595
I DONT AGREE WITH BOTH.BUT IRAN DOES HAVE A RIGHT TO ENRICH FUEL IF ONLY FOR CIVILLIAN PURPOSES.AND IF US WANTS TO OBJECT IT WHY DOESNT IT DESTROY ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS FIRST AND THEN PREACH ABOUT NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION