IRAN nukes, should the world let them develop nukes?
437785
Hmmm......I remember a couple years ago, bush said something like this (direct quote):\n\n"knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."\n\nYeah, I remember that, I was sitting in 105:H International Studies at Washington University when he said that, it was a reference to "Iraq's" "Nuclear technology" that we all know now that he never even had.....whooopsy, guess we can't use that phrase again....\n\nThey've been threatening Israel for the last 30 years, in fact you act as if Israel is so vulnerable, while as a matter of fact they are the ones that have ballistic missiles and atomic capablities, you act as if Iran is the bully===right.....hmmmm yeah did you get the memo? \n\n------------\n\nI don't like your attitude when it comes to describing their leaders either, I have my own feelings towards most Islamic extremists as I do for Christian extremists (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson), but I don't go as far to label them and make a racial slur...you need to have some decency, and I know your probably quite young, however better to learn now than never right?
1119142
No. We should allow a hostile country to develop any weapon they want, so they can attack us later on. Then we can sit back and bitch and moan about how Bush screwed it up. We should wait for the inneffectual UN to pass 20+ resolutions over the next 10-20 years. Then once they have the bomb and have attacked us we can be blamed for it, and rebuild their country better than it was before. All while they burn our flag and chant, "Death to America."
595842
AA my good friend, I think we may AGREE on this one. Iran's primary motivation is to construct nuclear weapons, nuclear power would be a secondary benefit and of course like any good sociopath, Iran is playing the "energy end up" while minimizing (to the outside world) the thought of developing nuclear weapons.
661098
Should the U.S be stopped from having nukes?
499177
Like it or not, Iran and North Korea are not allowed to have nuclear weapons because an alliance of nations (namely the UN and NATO) have passed restrictions against thier developing of such weapons... That being said, I do (and any reasonable person should) think it is AT LEAST a little hypocritical that we attempt to disarm the world, and yet spend record amounts to arm ourselves (we, as in the the US)... I do agree with you that Bush (at the moment) is a far greater threat to world peace (like him or not, actions are louder than words), than any two nations combined... What angers me is that we are trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear power... they have the legal right to develop nuclear power under the UN, but also must submit themselves to inspection (something they have refused to do)... but, keep in mind that the US openly has a nuclear weapons program, and only a small fraction of it is "visable" to the UN (despite what the politicians say)... With ALL of the above being said, if Iran would openly submit to inspection, I would not be against their RIGHT to develop peaceful nuclear energy (note that all US nuclear POWER facilities are open for inspection)... as for nuclear weapons, it is my firm belief that if one country wishes to disarm another peacefuly, it must do so its self... that is not to say we should completely disarm our nuclear stockpile, as this would create an imbsalance between us, and other world powers (namely China and Russia)... I do know for a fact, that a nuclear (weapons) Iran is a danger to the world, in particular, the US, Europe, and its neigbors... really it is a far more complicated issue than it seems on the surface, and WAY more complicated than our political leaders (and those of other nations) want us to believe. Sanctions (economic, and material) have been proposed (against Iran), but I believe, that given our fragile economic state, imposing such sanctions, would be the economic equivelent of "kicking ourselves in the (censored by yahoo)", and would therefore most likely fail quicly, or WE would face the consequences of economic recesion (thus succeeding in punishing ourselves!?!)... most politicians are playing this economic impact down, and I fear that our government may start bombing Iran soon (much like Iraq under Clinton)... now I know you asked to minimize the "Bush bashing", but I just gotta get it out of my system... It is my thought that the war-monger, chickenhawk, ideological, neofacist, Bushite, republican morons (notice I insulted republicans, and not conservatives, as they are not always one and the same), will drag us into another unecisary conflict... now that I've got that out of my system... I just am not sure what is the BEST solution (or if there is a "best" solution), but I know what we certainly shoudn't do, and I fear we will do it anyways...\n\nto directly answer your question, we are alowed to have a say, only because of our size, and military might, if Iran had these two factors over us, (they were the super power), THEY would be telling US what to do... it's not right, but such struggles between human powers/groups/factions have been going on since the begining of humanity... and will probably go on until humanity is gone... I hate to say it (and as a member of the human race, I am ashamed to), but nothing has changed, same concepts, just different weapons, and different names... same old desires, fortune, land, and power... don't think about it too hard, or you'll wind up like me... the sad thing is majority is power, and in this world, the individule has little say, something I recognize, but never really like to believe...\n\nAnyways, sorry for the long, drawn out, boring rant, but it is a complicated issue, like I said, don't stress about it to mutch.\n\n*************************************\nNever fear "marty barber", I am 100% sure that a good portion of your people are hypo
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.
191176
NO.\nDo you think only the U.S. has nuclear weapons?\nSuch dangerous and irresponsible action would only make\nnon-American world leaders more nervous than Bush has already made them-and many of them also have control of nukes.\n As well,it's only a matter of time before it's possible before some terrorist group has the capacity to make or\nacquire a nuclear device,and I'm sure what you propose would not only accelerate the process but make the most deadly form of retaliation there is inevitable. The world's\nchanged a lot since Hiroshima.\n There has to be another way to handle the Middle East,more\nfinesse than that is required.
639067
Keep in mind that Iraq wanted nukes, but never got them. Plus, they DID possess chemical weapons of mass destruction and DID use them on their own people.\nAs far as Iran, nothing should be done but try to negotiate with them. If they don't comply with what the world wants, then that will be a sad day for their country.
406795
Iran has only managed to refine a very small amount of material for a bomb.  The experts say they do not have anywhere enough to create a bomb yet.  If the UN and the USA are smart they will never give Iran the time to finish.
1113941
I would continue the nuclear program.As long as it's OK for other countries to have nuclear energy(cos i don't think they are building weapons of mass destruction) it's OK for Iran to have it too
650869
Somebody will as the world's existance could easily be at stake. If Iran develops nukes it almost assures WW III will come about inside a decade of them aquiring Nukes. If somebody dosen't all that stood by signs a death warrent for the world.
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.  .
42168
I don't understand. US suggests they want to attack Israel. But Iran has already tons of WMD's and an outstanding army (nothing to do with the Taliban Afghanistan, or the isolated Sadam), besides the great power of being the fourth reserve of oil, and the economic power it represents.  \nIran says they want nuclear power, to be a developed country. But it's not necessary to have nuclear power to develop. Many European countries or the neighbour Arab Emirats, are more than developed wihtout nuclear power. \n\nA military strike would be the worse option. If they want to have nuclear power or even nukes, they should, like many other countries, even with dictators do. Only because they don't have a good relationship with Israel or US, it shouldn't be banned. \nIf in 10 years they dare to attack someone with nukes, they will be easily smashed back. \nI mean they might be extremists, but they're not suicides.
327106
No. Iran's radical theocrats want a nuclear weapon. (It gnaws at them that Israel has nuclear weapons. It is Israel's nuclear weapons that have deterred attacks from her neighbors.) They have no legitimate need for nuclear energy. They have more than enough oil to cover their energy needs. They use the excuse of a "right" to nuclear technology to drum up support among Iranians for the government (which is otherwise disliked/hated by the majority of Iranians). \n\nIran is stalling for more time to strengthen their bargaining position. (They've done fairly well for themselves thus far. The talks have been ongoing for three years now.) So far they haven't overly miscalculated, but that doesn't mean the world's patience isn't wearing thin. What happens next is up to Iran. Russia and China won't be able to perpetually block meaningful efforts within the UN to address the problem.\n\nI don't think the US will attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but I wouldn't be surprised if Israel did so. Contrary to what many think, Israel will do what they feel is in their best interests whether or not the US condones it. What will the fallout be? Not much. There will be condemnations from Arab and Muslim governments, but the Iranians have two things against them. They aren't Arabs, and they aren't Sunnis.
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.
41704
most probably america will easily solve this by droping a nuke on the iranians...maybe they'll drop it on moscow too if its convientent since they like bombing up other countries like japan,vietnam,afghanistan,iraq....etc..
929110
If the question is about rights then yes... whether not the world will let them is a different story.\n\nIran has every right to enrich uranium for 'energy' purposes because it is a member of the NPT (Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty) and in compliance with the IAEA standards. These guarantee this right as long Iran stays within certain guidelines.\n\nIronically, Bush told India, who has refused to sign the NPT, they could enrich uranium. This creates a very complicated dilemma.\n\nAdditionally, if you examine Iran's history, Iran has no history of aggression but rather of defense. Iran has also held to all regulations of the NPT to include full access to all uranium enrichment sites to all U.N. inspectors.\n\nThere is no evidence to support restricting Iran's right to enrich uranium in order to obtain nuclear energy. Also, keep in mind, Israel has nuclear weapons.\n\nNow with all that said, how do I feel about it? I am not comfortable with Iran having any nuclear capability whatsoever. That is why I fully support Russia's offer to Iran to let them use their nuclear enrichment sites in reaching the targeted material for nuclear power.\n\nThis way, Iran gets nuclear energy but does not have the capability of enriching uranium.\n\nWhy am I uncomfortable with Iran having this capability? It is not because I feel they are a threat. And it is not that I believe Iran would secretly develop nuclear weapons. It is my fear that Iran is too closely related to organizations that want to do us and Israel harm and I am afraid this technology might fall in the wrong hands.