[Closed] Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

Its the old, nuclear weapons are dangerous so you shouldnt develop them because that would be proliferation. However as we have them already thats you cant expect us to unilaterally disarm, especially because we are a democracy and everyone knows that democracies are fair, dont engage in torture or special rendition and dont attack other countries without just cause (are you listening to me at the back there Tony and George?) not like those sneaky vodka drinking, football club buying commies

Wouldn't the world be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?

Hell no.

It would make Israel think twice about repeating the Dimona attack, it may also make the US think again about expanding its' military presence in the region.

And this also points out one of the major flaws in the pro nuclear power arguments. We must have loads more nuclear reactors to stop the lights going out but Iran is not allowed any.

Its hypocrisy and I do not believe for a moment that Iran is even attempting to build a nuclear bomb

Its hypocrisy and I do not believe for a moment that Iran is even attempting to build a nuclear bomb

Really? In that case,care to buy a job lot of used helmets?

TJ + 1 tis a load of toss.

If I was running Iran I would definitely be trying to build nuclear weapons. History shows that we don't (directly) attack/invade countries that do...

Would the world be safer? 50/50 really. Impossible to say for sure.

Its hypocrisy and I do not believe for a moment that Iran is even attempting to build a nuclear bomb

I think the story is that everyone is there with you TJ - Iran aint trying to build the bomb per se, but what they are deffo doing is building nuclear capability.
they say its purely for reactors, but the western believes that its also the technology & enrichemnt capacity & designs to be capable of building a bomb and producing weapons grade fissile material as a sideline to their reactor programme

ohnohesback - Member
Wouldn't the world be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?

I do not believe for a moment that Iran is even attempting to build a nuclear bomb

Well you are certainly in the minority there, even if they are not trying to build them they are trying to develop the capabaility to do so if they want.

If Iran have nukes Saudi will up their game, god only knows what Israel will do, and erm... well, Iran would have nukes. Remember what the Mullahs did when their own people started to protest. Yep, they shot loads of them. I am pretty sure they wouldn't be so kind to hostile foreigners who are trying to impinge on their sovreignty.

Nukes never make the world safer, they just alter the balance of power.

Really? In that case,care to buy a job lot of used helmets?

I also have a bit of real estate in London for sale. Small footprint, but it's a standout on the skyline. You heard of Big Ben?

I don't think the world would be safer but then I don't think it would any more dangerous either.

Tactically it would be unusable as any deployment would lead to pretty much the destruction of Iran. Who they gonna launch it at, Israel? America have got their back and Iran would be destroyed in retaliation. NATO? Same end result, destruction of Iran. Anyone else I can think of would lead down the same path.

The only tactical use that I can see is that it helps protect them slightly against a land invasion as they have a nuclear deterrent, but even then the moment they deploy anything nuclear their future would become pretty bleak.

Iran have the option to develop Nuclear technology for power generation under the guidance of the west.
They choose not to take up this offer because they are attemtping to generate nuclear weapons. I think if Iran have such weapons they will not simply use them for defence however I would be suprised if they got to that stage as I think Israel will pre emt it.

Its a frightening scenario.

How would we feel if we had to develop our nuclear facilities along the lines set by, and offer them up to, inspection by Iran?

Having a bomb is not the same as having the delivery capabilty to put one on us.

It doesn't do much to help the west secure its oil supplies from the middle East and so I expect we'll be invading them next under some pretence or the other.

Probably pretty pissed off seeing as they openly threaten their neighbours and kill their own people if they protest.

I understand what you are saying from an equality and fairness point of view, why should any one country not be allowed to pursue it's own agenda without interference from the outside world but the rulers of Iran are nutters whom even their own people would depose if they didn't get massacred every time they tried.

Should psycopaths have the bomb?

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. Currently they are likely in breach of the treaty (non-cooperation) which is what all the fuss is about.

Israel, India, ****stan never signed it. North Korean withdrew from it in 2003. South Africa joined in 1991 and dismantled its weapons.

"The impetus behind the NPT was concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon states. It was recognized that the cold war deterrent relationship between just the United States and Soviet Union was fragile. Having more nuclear nuclear-weapon states would reduce security for all, multiplying the risks of miscalculation, accidents, unauthorized use of weapons, or from escalation in tensions, nuclear conflict."

Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

EDIT

ohnohesback - Member
How would we feel if we had to develop our nuclear facilities along the lines set by, and offer them up to, inspection by Iran?

We do; under the terms of the NPT all our nuclear facilities, peaceful or other wise, are open to inspection to the IAEA.

You could argue that in the case of the USA they have, and former USSR they did.

As for delivery systems, nuclearising scuds or 'D'PRK medium range missiles would be the quick and dirty option, along with a fall-back RDD option for storage in the embassies located in the captitals of likely agressors.

Are these like the weapons Saddam Hussein had that we were told about...?

The 'World' might be a bit safer if Iran had nukes, cos then that might put the West off from invading them for their oil. As well as hopefully deterring Israel from launching an attack.

Israel is the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East. Disarm Israel, and a whole load of tension will ease overnight.

The 'World' might be a bit safer if Iran had nukes, cos then that might put the West off from invading them for their oil. As well as hopefully deterring Israel from launching an attack.

Given the rhetoric the threat appears to come form Iran aimed at Israel. I dont have any doubt that Iran would strike first at Israel hence my comment above that I dont think Israel will let it get that far.

Israel is the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East. Disarm Israel, and a whole load of tension will ease overnight.

I would never defend Israel but to say the middle east would be peaceful if they werent there is rubbish.

Do they have them - no.
Are they trying to acquire them - probably.
Should they have them - no.
Should anyone have them - no.
What should we do - nothing, let the UN and Arab league sort it out.

To be fair, the course of direction right now is quite right. Everyone is rightly worried, Iran is a unstable nation amoungst other unstable nations with a known hatred of Israel. The UN and Arab League are picking up the Gauntlet and running with this. The US and EU won't touch Iran on their own - completly different kettle of fish when compared to Iraq / Afghanistan. Same can be said about Syria.

Disarm Israel, and a whole load of tension will ease overnight.

Now that is just plain silly.

When did Iran last make an aggressive act? something like attacking another country?

Who has killed the most people in the region in the last 25 years?

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

same reason you wouldn't give a baby a knife!

Who has killed the most people in the region in the last 25 years?

At a guess, Arabs?

At a guess, Arabs?

Is there something you've missed?

jruk

Try again. Try a couple of million Iraqis and many hundreds of thousands of afghanis and Libyans killed mainly by the UK and the US

Disarm Israel, and a whole load of tension will ease overnight.

That sounds high to me TJ - directly or indirectly? indirectly I could believe. Proof?

I really cant belive how incredibly naive some people are. Would the world be safer is Iran had nuclear weapons ....Jeez.

In an ideal worls nobody would have any and that is where we need to aim for. So no they damm well should not have any.

Its even worse where countries have nuclear weapons when that might actually use them. The guy is a power crazy nutter and while I don't think he would be that stupid to try and use them I would really rather prefer that he didn't have the choice.

Nuclear weapons are a danger to the human race and the less the better. I just wish someone would take them of Israel too.

Indirectly since 1990 - thats all excess deaths ie including the increased child mortality and the decreased life expectancy and all the extra deaths from disease.

the lancet got 650 000 between 2003 and 2006 in iraq alone ( mostly direct)

WEB.MIT.EDU "http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf"

Interesting TJ

as a comparison, I don't suppose theres any data on premature deaths in Iraq due to Consanguinity related genetic defects?

Just asking like... be interesting to compare.

The genie is out of the bottle as they say.

Is it ever going to be possible to stop the spread of nukes in the long term? Probably not.

Also, I think you need to consider why the west has nuclear weapons, they were created to face the greatest threat the World has ever faced and once you have them what do you do?

Personally, I would be happier if no-one had them but that's not going to happen. I can understand why Israel wants them, their neighbours have repeatedly called for their complete destruction. The problem is if Israel is seriously threatened by a nuclear Iran I have no doubt they would perform a pre-emptive strike.

I think that the best solution would be for all the Middle Eastern protagonists to be forced to get rid of their nukes but that is not going to happen.

Try again. Try a couple of million Iraqis and many hundreds of thousands of afghanis and Libyans killed mainly by the UK and the US

Indirectly since 1990 - thats all excess deaths ie including the increased child mortality and the decreased life expectancy and all the extra deaths from disease.

I think you need to quote both of those together otherwise it's a rather misleading statement IMO. No more excusable but misleading.

Anyway, what's the relevance of " premature deaths in Iraq due to Consanguinity related genetic defects"? Is interfamily marriage a significant issue there?

Its funny how Iran have to defend their decisions from the only people to have actually used a nuke(usa) and Israel whos leader is regarded by france and america as a liar. And he used to dress as a woman to shoot plo members bitd! I say let them defend themselves.

Clubber - they are still dead as a result of US / UK actions.

if it wasn't for Klaus Fuchs and Morris Cohen, The russians wouldn't have developed the atomic bomb as quickly as they did (or at all for that matter) and we could potentially be living in a different world today.

Tactically it would be unusable as any deployment would lead to pretty much the destruction of Iran. Who they gonna launch it at, Israel? America have got their back and Iran would be destroyed in retaliation. NATO? Same end result, destruction of Iran. Anyone else I can think of would lead down the same path.

That's the rational argument for not taking action to stop them developing nuclear weapons- the assumption that they would have to be mad to use them.

However how rational do we think the rulers of Iran are? How prepared would they be to martyr their nation in order to destroy Israel?

Pfft - you may as well blame China as that's where gunpowder came from that kick started all this :p

Given Iran has a shoddy military (especially compared with a US-backed Israeli one) then they're hardly likely to start something (overt anyway - or are you also arguing they're not involved in Iraq/Afghanistan...). Give them nukes though and you give them a much bigger platform to make threats from and who knows what else.

Even if Iran didn't become aggressive after developing nuclear weapons I still wouldn't have any confidence material wouldn't 'inadvertently' fall into the hands of terrorist groups they share common interests with that results in the use of a dirty bomb.

As for whether they want a bomb or not then to me it's a no brainer, why wouldn't they? I know I would in their situation and if they weren't why not allow inspections? Why are they also investing in state of the art centrifuges capable of producing highly enriched uranium (i.e. weapons grade)? Sure you can pass it off as usable for power generation/medical but you don't *need* highly-enriched uranium for power generation even if it may have some benefits so why go to all the hassle and blow billions on it (given they're not exactly floating in money) if it's not required?

TandemJeremy - Member
Clubber - they are still dead as a result of US / UK actions.

Indeed but indirectly which like it or not is not the same in most people's eyes since the level of certainty isn't the same - if I shoot someone, there's no question, I caused it. If something I do leads to it then it's not always so clear cut, especially if you can't be [b]certain[/b] that the same outcome may not have occurred. Not acceptable but not the same.

if it wasn't for Klaus Fuchs and Morris Cohen, The russians wouldn't have developed the atomic bomb as quickly as they did (or at all for that matter) and we could potentially be living in a different world today.

Get outta here.

That's predicated on the sanity of the US - who are proven to be just as fruitcake and deadly as anyone left to their own devices with the upper hand. Of the '00s if not '000s of nuclear devices detonted worldwide, the US has the majority share.

Japan is the still dealing with the genetic consequnces of the 2 WWII devices that guess who deployed. The only ones ever used in war. Without current nuclear checks how often do you think the war criminal Dubya and others would have justified deploying nuclear armaments in recent conflicts.

Given his thread yesterday, I just hope that Flaperon never gets nuclear capability 😕

Iran already has long range weapons, what they don't have Is a nuclear war head to bolt on the front.

China has sold missiles to Iran since the 1980,s as the years went by these missiles increased in distance,

in 2004 Iran is suspected of buying 9 of these.

[img] [/img]

Although their Korean missiles it was leaked in 2010 that china was the supplier to Iran, but china took delivery off Korea.

America couldn't impose sanctions on Iran because MR Obama had just sold 1.7 trillion dollars worth of debt to the chinese government.

The Chinese government Is currently buying $35 billion of debt at each session ( 3 sessions a week )and has been since june 2011,

when this figure hits $3 trillion and it will in the next 18months the interest will eventually out strip the repayments,

America needs this war more than ever its skint, and cannot continue to sell its debt at the rate it is doing so.

America oil companies pump out 1.5 million barrels of oil a day in Iraq.

In 1998 Dick Cheney and his buddies decided to build a gas pipe line, the only down side was it had to run through Afghanistan. Cue 2001 invasion.

This pipe line runs from ****stan into Afghanistan, then has to go round IRAN into Turkmenistan, when it is then connected to the oil in Iraq,and then out through Israeli port.

American oil companies are trying to build a pipeline from Libya through Egypt, into Israeli ports where it can be connected to the pipe line leaving Iraq.

If America could some how find a way to connect Iran to the pipe line then its got a hat rick of oilfields

Then America can start the process of buying back its debt before China put the interest rate up.

Oil and War equals profit.

it's strange, all this iran trying to get nuclear weapons stuff is supposedly from an IAEA report. When I try to find this on their website, all i can see is this:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/bog091111.html

so, not sure where all the info is coming from, unless it's being leaked by people with a vested interest?

I listened to this on radio 4 this morning, and what they said, in amongst the hysteria was the report apparently says that iran has done little to progress towards build a nuclear weapon since 2003.

smoke + mirrors = dead iranians in the future

That's predicated on the sanity of the US - who are proven to be just as fruitcake and deadly as anyone left to their own devices with the upper hand. Of the '00s if not '000s of nuclear devices detonted worldwide, the US has the majority share.

That is exactly my point. if Fuchs and Cohen hadn't passed their secrets to the Russians, there is an argument that the US would have used them on who ever challenged them. They (fuchs and Cohen) were not traitors, they were martyrs.

This link on [url=

is interesting.

I know it's kind of hypocritical for the nuclear nations to be demanding Iran halt nuclear development but I would be pulling all the stops out to prevent them.

I'd believe all that merchant banker says without question. It is entirely the type of behavior I expect from our "cousins" and exactly why we should opt out of any military action.

If Saddam was still around, and was looking to have a nuke, would we be happy for him to have one?

Fact is, no one should have them. We should do everything to stop more nukes being made, everything, because one day they will be used.

[approaches blue touch-paper]

I get incredibly frustrated when the discussion includes words like "should" or "shouldn't". It usually means we're off into the realms of fruitless hand-wringing introspective idealism.

The question is, what would you have your elected representatives do now or plan to do next, based on where we are now? You cannot undo the past. You can only manage what remains to be done.

Don't we just stoke up the Isrealis to the point that they do our dirty work for us so that we get to stand back and tell them that they really shouldn't have done that.

[retires to a safe distance, having lit the blue diplomatic touch-paper]

That is some of the Problem, the chances of Iran making a nuclear weapon is virtually zero.

But they will have the capabilities to drop a dirty bomb on Israel, should they be allowed to build a plant to enrich the depleted uranium China has sold them.

That means nobody can pump anything out of anywhere for many years to come if israel is toxic.

Fact is, no one should have them

True. But while the UK etc have nuclear weapons, we are in no position to demand that others don't develop them. If we truly want to see nuclear disarmament, then it must be truly unilateral. It's alright for us to sit in our ivory towers demanding others don't do as we have, but we're not the ones threatened with attack from hostile forces like Iran is.

If I was an Iranian living in Iran, I'd want my government to provide the best protection against invasion possible....

Think the answer is within the title of this thread.

Would our homes and streets be safer if we ALL had one of these?

[img] [/img]

I'm here all week. Try the veal.

I think the streets would be far safer if we all had one of these:

[img] [/img]

Certainly might shut a few people up... 😉

why do they have to build there own, I would have thought they could have bought some if they really wanted them

bet you can get them on flea bay

I do think TBH some one in the world would supply them if they really wanted them

Winston smith has a very good point

Ok go my soap box out now, why should the Israiles be able to attack them at will, and why is the world not shouting there heads of at them, they spread out on land thats not theres, put a huge wall up, 10 times worse than the berlin wall, go across when ever they want in to palastine with as much weponary as you will ever need, we the other side has little better than sticks and stones, i think the desevre all they get

but what realy really pisses me of is that all this is over so called religion

I am so sick of "religion" causing death and distruction all over the world, our god is better than your god, utter utter stupidity

do they currently have them?
- i don't believe so

are they trying to manufacture nuclear weapons?
- of course they are!!!!! wake up people

why shouldn't iran have nuclear weapons?
because they would use them as leverage to destablise the current middle east power structure by threatening their neighbours, in an attempt to strengthen their already strong position in the region whether it be political or energy security

they already sit very comfortably in energy stakes with large, no ****ing huge reserves of natural gas and petroleum, and currently use wind and geothermal power as well as solar energy, so yes they really need nuclear power as well

as for iran not being involved in armed conflict recently... what!

they have been constantly involved in the upsurgency in iraq and afganistan, this year wiped out the kurds in northern iran, have frosty relations with another neighbour Azerbaijan and lay claim to the Persian Gulf, otherwise known as the Gulf of Iran

get real

the israels will bomb them anyway... just like they did in syria and iraq

are they trying to manufacture nuclear weapons?
- of course they are!!!!! wake up people

Do you have any evidence? No one has been able to find any so if you have could you please make it public

they already sit very comfortably in energy stakes with large, no **** huge reserves of natural gas and petroleum, and currently use wind and geothermal power as well as solar energy, so yes they really need nuclear power as well

right -= so do we need nuclear power?

as for iran not being involved in armed conflict recently... what!

they have been constantly involved in the upsurgency in iraq and afganistan, this year wiped out the kurds in northern iran, have frosty relations with another neighbour Azerbaijan and lay claim to the Persian Gulf, otherwise known as the Gulf of Iran

Rally - again I would be obliged if you could make your evidence known tot eh world at large

Winston smith has a very good point

Which one is that then? I'm struggling.

IAEA report is [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/nov/09/iran-nuclear-programme-iaea-report ]here.[/url]

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2011/nov/09/iaea-nuclear-iran-israel1 ]Here's a little bit of interpretation[/url] (from the Guardian) of why there's a problem.

but what realy really pisses me of is that all this is over so called religion

I am so sick of "religion" causing death and distruction all over the world, our god is better than your god, utter utter stupidity

milkyman, I may have misread your intentions, but it's not the Israelis but the balance of the Middle East that uses religion to justify their actions and rhetoric.

Is it because they love death more than we love life?

bear with me, just need to find by certification of nuclear weapons training via a ****stan college

try reading the press TJ - it does get out

off back to work now, not going to spend anymore of my time discussing TJ's fantasy liberal dream world

vinnyeh

thats right - the report ha no significant evidecne of any activity since 2004

From the guardian link
Furthermore, the bulk of the report is historical, referring to the years leading up to 2003. Its interpretation depends largely on whether you are a glass half-full or half-empty sort of person. On the one hand, the IAEA is confirming beyond reasonable doubt that there was a centralised, heavily funded, programme (codenamed Amad and run by a man called Mohsen Fahkrizadeh from his daintily titled "orchid office"). [b]On the other hand, the report is also adamant that Amad was halted in 2003.[/b]

Orange - I do read the press and have seen no decent evidence for any of the things you mention.

Nice use of Liberal as a pejorative term BTW

you shouldn't be so selective in your quotes TJ...

Furthermore, the Iranians are moving more and more of its enrichment work into a chamber dug under a mountain at a military base at Fordow, where it would be far harder to get at. There are now about two and half 'cascades' of 174 centrifuges there and a large cylinder of (3.5% enriched) LEU has been moved there with the intention of turning it into 20% uranium.

Far more worrisome is the possibility that Iran has a parallel, covert programme underground somewhere, silently spinning away while the world and its inspectors keep eagle eyes on Natanz and Qom etc. This is very hard to pull off as the whole fuel cycle has to be kept under wraps from the moment the uranium ore comes out of the ground. There is evidence that Iran has tried to do this, but also evidence that the international community has had success thwarting those efforts.

Neither of these actions strike me as those of a country acting above board.

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

Because there'll quite dangerous. The real question should be why are nt we doing more to decommission the current nuclear weapons.

OK, I'll bite..

You don't allow fanatical islamists to go nuclear

Their doctrine cannot be compared with other religeons as they'd happily nuke every living thing on the planet including themselves if the situation arose where they believe it's for the greater good.

And ****stan although islamic is no comparison with Iran either (at the moment)

A bitter pill for soppy western liberals to swallow but hey ho.

And before you fall out your highchair ElfBoy, how many Jihadists do you think live within a mile radius of you in London who'd love nothing more than to see you either as their dhimmi or dead?

I'd want my government to provide the best protection against invasion possible....

I would also want my Government to provide other things such as a right to free speech oh and little equality between the sexes would be nice as well as a cesation in such barbaric practices as flogging and stoning people to death. Equal access to education and so on. But hey I'm just an optimist!

You don't allow fanatical islamists to go nuclear

Their doctrine cannot be compared with other religeons as they'd happily nuke every living thing on the planet including themselves if the situation arose where they believe it's for the greater good.

There's only one country who has dropped a nuclear bomb in the belief that it's for the greater good.

vinnyeh from your quote

This is very hard to pull off as the whole fuel cycle has to be kept under wraps from the moment the uranium ore comes out of the ground. There is evidence that Iran has tried to do this, but also evidence that the international community has had success thwarting those efforts.

Their doctrine cannot be compared with other religeons as they'd happily nuke every living thing on the planet including themselves if the situation arose where they believe it's for the greater good.

Ah of course did we not say that about russia?
What about the stable fella in North Korea - they have nukes but have not used them.
No one will use nukes as it has not reall offensive capabilities it only has MAD* capabilities

Mutually Assured Destruction. Your enemies are limited in what they can do to you as you can take them with you. they are IMHO largely defensive. That is why we dont want Iran to have it as we may wish to invade them again sometime soon and reimpose a western friendly givt on them.

any actions that use religon as there crutch is wrong, regardless of who uses it

fanatic = some one who cannot or wont change there mind

any actions that use religon as there crutch is wrong, regardless of who uses it

I would replace "religion" with "ideology". The current ideology we're implementing through force is "freedom" as if it's a product that can be wrapped and exported. I also note that the person who initiated war in Afghanistan and Iraq is a fundamentalist Christian.

ransos - Member
There's only one country who has dropped a nuclear bomb in the belief that it's for the greater good.