Iran asks Europe to back its right to nuclear weapons

[Hayabusa Rider]

Depends on what you mean by blink. I don't think they will give into a list of demands, however I don't see them doing much to prevent it. If push comes to shove, I think Iran will withdraw from the Non-proliferation treaty, but would rather have it both ways- receiving the benefits of "complying" with the treaty while developing a weapon. I certainly would want nukes if I were them.

Anyway, if you mean Europe follows the list they have been handed, I'll take that bet, otherwise nope. Iran will eventually have a bomb though whether by their own program or acquiring one by other means.

 

[Ozoned]

"I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign."



Ayup, if I was a ruling cleric in Iran, i'd be sh!tting myself ,too...

 

[no0b]

I would be alittle worried with Iran and nukes it seems like there might be a revolution (althought maybe peaceful) and the nukes could be used as a desperation attack. Right now Iran seems alittle fragile to me to have nukes right now. (but then again all the information I know of Iran comes from US media...)

 

[0marTheZealot]

Iran has repeatedly said that this is for peaceful energy purposes.

Give them access to light-water reactors (they aren't dual use; no material is usable for weaponry) and that should be the end of it. Both sides SHOULD be happy. If Iran insists on having dual-use reactors, then flat out tell them no, this is not possible. If they are really wanting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, a light-water reactor should suit their needs.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign."



Ayup, if I was a ruling cleric in Iran, i'd be sh!tting myself ,too...

Why would you sh!t yourself?...Iran is not something easily handled.
An invasion would surely be Vietnam2, religious motivation, little american supprt in the country, larger military, tons of people.

Just look at iraq as an example...this would be the most comparible war...minus the VERY important issues stated above.

 

[Pjotr]

Who decides which countries can have nuclear weapons? God? The first country with nuclear arms? By what means can one country demand another to not develop nuclear arms? As long as all nuclear arms are not used, has anyone commited any crime? Remember only one country in history has actually ever used nuclear arms... USA.

Iran is the enemy? Well, so was Soviet, and nobody forced them to dismanlte their nuclear arms.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Iran has repeatedly said that this is for peaceful energy purposes.

Give them access to light-water reactors (they aren't dual use; no material is usable for weaponry) and that should be the end of it. Both sides SHOULD be happy. If Iran insists on having dual-use reactors, then flat out tell them no, this is not possible. If they are really wanting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, a light-water reactor should suit their needs.

Oh, I guess we should take them at their word then.:roll:

Light water reactors are not exactly uncommon in the world. France or Russia would be able to provide technical assistance on construction and operation with little problem.

Iran is building enrichment facilities that could easily be used to make weapons grade uranium. Reactor grade fuel could be purchased from other sources. There is no good reason for Iran to have domestic enrichment other than to keep secret what they are really doing.

 

[kage69]

As long as all nuclear arms are not used, has anyone commited any crime? Remember only one country in history has actually ever used nuclear arms... USA.

Let's not forget Iran's proven terrorist ties, and the fact that they've repeatedly used terrorism against the US. The fact that the US has used nukes is irrelevent, they were a last resort option used to shut down a long, bloody war (which worked). Have they been used since for flippant reasons? Has the US engaged in any aggresive, hateful dialogue pertaining to the total elimination of other countries? Iran has, on a regular basis no less.


There can be two sides of debate over all countries all entitled to arm themselves as they see fit, but it's a matter a common sense if a country, run by a fundamental theocracy who sponsors international terrorism, should have nukes (read: they shouldn't).

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: kage69

As long as all nuclear arms are not used, has anyone commited any crime? Remember only one country in history has actually ever used nuclear arms... USA.

Let's not forget Iran's proven terrorist ties, and the fact that they've repeatedly used terrorism against the US. The fact that the US has used nukes is irrelevent, they were a last resort option used to shut down a long, bloody war (which worked). Have they been used since for flippant reasons? Has the US engaged in any aggresive, hateful dialogue pertaining to the total elimination of other countries? Iran has, on a regular basis no less.


There can be two sides of debate over all countries all entitled to arm themselves as they see fit, but it's a matter a common sense if a country, run by a fundamental theocracy who sponsors international terrorism, should have nukes (read: they shouldn't).

ok if Iran was democratic would be allowed to have nukes, even if the population show an anti-american view?

 

[K1052]

Iran freely signed the NPT (and has not withdrawn), so if they go ahead with their program they will be in breach of treaty if they are not already.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Iran is not the kind of country you want to take a hardline with. It isn't a simple invasion as you'd like to think. Their government and military are very structured relative to Iraq's. Also unlike Saddam an unliked dictator, you have the religeous leaders as the rulers. People will blindly die for not only their country, but their whole reason for living and life itself.

Not even considering the fact that iran spends 4 times more on miltary than iraq did. Also they have 70million people. (3 times iraq)

Iran is a whole new beast. An unwinable battle unless you full out disregard geneva convention documentation...

Unwinable? who needs to win when you can destroy their infrastructure. The US could rain down a fire would ruin their communications systems, electrical systems...roads and bridges...we could target their government buildings....they would have nothing left....without one US Soldier landing on the ground.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Stunt
Iran is not the kind of country you want to take a hardline with. It isn't a simple invasion as you'd like to think. Their government and military are very structured relative to Iraq's. Also unlike Saddam an unliked dictator, you have the religeous leaders as the rulers. People will blindly die for not only their country, but their whole reason for living and life itself.

Not even considering the fact that iran spends 4 times more on miltary than iraq did. Also they have 70million people. (3 times iraq)

Iran is a whole new beast. An unwinable battle unless you full out disregard geneva convention documentation...

Unwinable? who needs to win when you can destroy their infrastructure. The US could rain down a fire would ruin their communications systems, electrical systems...roads and bridges...we could target their government buildings....they would have nothing left....without one US Soldier landing on the ground.

and then what?

 

[kage69]

ok if Iran was democratic would be allowed to have nukes, even if the population show an anti-american view?

I'd say the close association with terrorism is the more pertinent distinction in the matter, not their form of government (although being led by hateful religious wackos doesn't help either). Look to Iran's history when considering if they should be allowed to have nukes.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Stunt
Iran is not the kind of country you want to take a hardline with. It isn't a simple invasion as you'd like to think. Their government and military are very structured relative to Iraq's. Also unlike Saddam an unliked dictator, you have the religeous leaders as the rulers. People will blindly die for not only their country, but their whole reason for living and life itself.

Not even considering the fact that iran spends 4 times more on miltary than iraq did. Also they have 70million people. (3 times iraq)

Iran is a whole new beast. An unwinable battle unless you full out disregard geneva convention documentation...

Unwinable? who needs to win when you can destroy their infrastructure. The US could rain down a fire would ruin their communications systems, electrical systems...roads and bridges...we could target their government buildings....they would have nothing left....without one US Soldier landing on the ground.

and then what?

We wouldnt have to worry about nukes then would we!

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Stunt
Iran is not the kind of country you want to take a hardline with. It isn't a simple invasion as you'd like to think. Their government and military are very structured relative to Iraq's. Also unlike Saddam an unliked dictator, you have the religeous leaders as the rulers. People will blindly die for not only their country, but their whole reason for living and life itself.

Not even considering the fact that iran spends 4 times more on miltary than iraq did. Also they have 70million people. (3 times iraq)

Iran is a whole new beast. An unwinable battle unless you full out disregard geneva convention documentation...

Unwinable? who needs to win when you can destroy their infrastructure. The US could rain down a fire would ruin their communications systems, electrical systems...roads and bridges...we could target their government buildings....they would have nothing left....without one US Soldier landing on the ground.

and then what?

We wouldnt have to worry about nukes then would we!

what if they already have them ?

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks

ok if Iran was democratic would be allowed to have nukes, even if the population show an anti-american view?

The US would still be opposed.
When India and Pakistan developed nukes, the US was pissed off too. When Taiwan, a US ally, tried developing nuclear weapons in the 60-70s, and the US found out early on, the US threatened to withdraw aid and support if they didn't stop. I think the US policy over the past few decades has been to contain nuclear proliferation, although it hasn't been as successful and seems like a losing battle. How do you contain technology? especially one that has been around for 50 years.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Stunt
Iran is not the kind of country you want to take a hardline with. It isn't a simple invasion as you'd like to think. Their government and military are very structured relative to Iraq's. Also unlike Saddam an unliked dictator, you have the religeous leaders as the rulers. People will blindly die for not only their country, but their whole reason for living and life itself.

Not even considering the fact that iran spends 4 times more on miltary than iraq did. Also they have 70million people. (3 times iraq)

Iran is a whole new beast. An unwinable battle unless you full out disregard geneva convention documentation...

Unwinable? who needs to win when you can destroy their infrastructure. The US could rain down a fire would ruin their communications systems, electrical systems...roads and bridges...we could target their government buildings....they would have nothing left....without one US Soldier landing on the ground.

and then what?

We wouldnt have to worry about nukes then would we!

what if they already have them ?

We do have more....Perhaps an example or two would be in order

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Stunt
Iran is not the kind of country you want to take a hardline with. It isn't a simple invasion as you'd like to think. Their government and military are very structured relative to Iraq's. Also unlike Saddam an unliked dictator, you have the religeous leaders as the rulers. People will blindly die for not only their country, but their whole reason for living and life itself.

Not even considering the fact that iran spends 4 times more on miltary than iraq did. Also they have 70million people. (3 times iraq)

Iran is a whole new beast. An unwinable battle unless you full out disregard geneva convention documentation...

Unwinable? who needs to win when you can destroy their infrastructure. The US could rain down a fire would ruin their communications systems, electrical systems...roads and bridges...we could target their government buildings....they would have nothing left....without one US Soldier landing on the ground.

and then what?

We wouldnt have to worry about nukes then would we!

what if they already have them ?

We do have more....Perhaps an example or two would be in order

Well, yeah if you want to go down as being worse than Stalin, Mao, and Hitler rolled into one.

If the US were to attack in such a manner, rest assured that in a few years countries which have nukes will make sure that major US population centers are taken out. There won't be return addresses on those nukes, so we would have no idea who to attack. A mad superpower WILL be undermined.

 

[K1052]

Well, yeah if you want to go down as being worse than Stalin, Mao, and Hitler rolled into one.

If the US were to attack in such a manner, rest assured that in a few years countries which have nukes will make sure that major US population centers are taken out. There won't be return addresses on those nukes, so we would have no idea who to attack. A mad superpower WILL be undermined.

If, theoretically, that happened I think the US government would make a few educated guesses.

 

[Pjotr]

Originally posted by: kage69
Let's not forget Iran's proven terrorist ties, and the fact that they've repeatedly used terrorism against the US. The fact that the US has used nukes is irrelevent, they were a last resort option used to shut down a long, bloody war (which worked). Have they been used since for flippant reasons? Has the US engaged in any aggresive, hateful dialogue pertaining to the total elimination of other countries? Iran has, on a regular basis no less.

There can be two sides of debate over all countries all entitled to arm themselves as they see fit, but it's a matter a common sense if a country, run by a fundamental theocracy who sponsors international terrorism, should have nukes (read: they shouldn't).

My point was that despite all the countries that has nuclear weapons, nobody has used them. Not even the "evil empire", the greatest enemy to the United States, used them.

According to the Iranian view, USA are the terrorists. Who is to judge who is right? I am just asking, I'm not saying anyone should have nuclear weapons, in fact I wish the UN would ban them alltogether and focre all countries to get rid of them. That doesn't seem like a viable option in these days, so who should decide which countries are allowed?

 

[tallest1]

EU should be glad Iran didn't develop nukes and fired them pre-emptively. God forbid other countries follow our example

Edit:typo

 

[0marTheZealot]

This isn't even about nuclear weapons, it's about nuclear power.

I say that we provide assisstance for reactors that CAN'T produce nuclear weapons. Then everyone is happy. BTW, the thread's title is misleading. Iran is asking for their "right" to nuclear technology, not weapons. They have said they wanted nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

If they removed their enrichment facilities, then we'd provide assisstance in lightwater reactors. I think that's a fair compromise.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: tallest1
EU should be glad Iran didn't develop nukes and fired them pre-emptively. God forbid other countries follow our example

Edit:typo

Yeah, because Japan was just sitting there, all peaceful, when Curtis LeMay told Paul Tibbets he wanted to see what a mushroom cloud over a foreign nation looked like :roll:

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
This isn't even about nuclear weapons, it's about nuclear power.

I say that we provide assisstance for reactors that CAN'T produce nuclear weapons. Then everyone is happy. BTW, the thread's title is misleading. Iran is asking for their "right" to nuclear technology, not weapons. They have said they wanted nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

If they removed their enrichment facilities, then we'd provide assisstance in lightwater reactors. I think that's a fair compromise.

Thats a fair compromise, but they won't do it. Why? Because they want nuclear weapons.

 

[kage69]

Iran sits on huge petroleum reserves which would be far easier and quicker to utilize for energy. Middle Eastern countries in general don't have anywhere near the amount of ecological consideration that we do, so the argument of 'they just want clean energy!' doesn't hold any weight.



This is about nuclear weapons. And we can thank the chimp for Iran's accelerated desire for them.

According to the Iranian view, USA are the terrorists. Who is to judge who is right? I am just asking, I'm not saying anyone should have nuclear weapons, in fact I wish the UN would ban them alltogether and focre all countries to get rid of them. That doesn't seem like a viable option in these days, so who should decide which countries are allowed?

As usuall, it's hard to say. Iran may consider some American policies tantamount to terrorism (like support for Isreal, they love that one) however supporting a country that has been ganged up on and just wants to exist doesn't really pass muster. Iran has a history of state sanctioned terrorism, no one can dispute this. It's a pity the UN can't enact something to the effect of known terrorist-supporting states being forbidden to have nukes. I too would like them outlawed altogether, but we both know that will never happen.