Viewing Thread:
"Irans Nuclear "Faux Pas""

Just thought I'd raise the topic of the seemingly impending war with Iran over its insistence in enriching its own nuclear materials.

My knowledge on the subject is fairly limited, but from what I understand, we (being part of the UN security council) have deemed it acceptable for Iran to use Nuclear power, but NOT to enrich its own nuclear fuels, in case these are used in the construction of weapons. As far as I'm aware there is no proof that Iran plan to use this material for use in weapons, and in my personal opinion, they should have the right to enrich nuclear fuels in the same way that we do and many other countries in the UN.

Some things that came to my mind is that if Iran is not allowed to enrich its own fuel, it would be forced to buy this fuel from other countries, meaning there is a motive here in the form of profit, to control Irans nuclear program. Aside from that, yeah it's easy to jump on the 'I hate Bush' bandwagon, but is he on a mission to alienate every single Islamic country in the world? Does he have a vendetta against the whole Middle East? It seems to be that way, and war with Iran is only going to fuel the divide between those who believe in an Islamic state and those who don't.

I have to admit when I heard about 'War with Iran?' on the news the other night it sickened me. It seems like the US led UN is bullying all the smaller nations of the world ... 'we say jump, you say how high' ... that sort of thing.

Yeah, it's not a completely well rounded arguement, but I just wanted to hear your views on it all. Are we going to stumble from one disasterous encounter (Iraq) into another ... ? What gives us the right to tell other nations how they can live, what they can and can't do? Who made us the world police? Let's have your views ... :)

Kawada wrote:


> Doesn't matter how small a nation is, any nation with Nuclear
> weapons is a danger, especially one that has already stated it
> wishes to wipe another from the map.

That's true ... but then America perfected the A-bomb first, I don't know the full chronology but the Soviet Union was certainly the next to develop the technology to the stage where it was a threat not only to America, but to the entire world. A stand off occured but no-one ever went through with 'pushing the button' as it were. Why? Well I like to think it's because, as warped as the human race can become, as extreme as some peoples views are, people just aren't stupid enough to destroy the whole world just to make a point. That may not be true, but I like to believe it is.

Another nation wishes to test the nuclear water and use the technology itself, yet we step in and say 'Hey, you can't have that, you can't be trusted with it!' who was there to tell us that when we were dabbling with huge warheads, and terms like 'Mutually Assured Destruction' were being used? No-one. So what gives us the right to A) Deprive a nation of a self sufficient nuclear program .... and B) to say 'you can't be trusted with that, you don't share our views' ...

To me it's just down to a form of control. We like to think we're the most evolved society here in the west, but you only have to watch TV or read the news to see we haven't got a clue what we're doing. So who are we to force our beliefs on other nations like that? The guy may have said he'd wipe us off the face of the planet, but he knows full well that if one ICBM leaves his soil with no warning ... his country, as it was, will cease to exist. It's the same with North Korea. They know full well they would be completely gone if they fired even a firework towards another country.

> Pakistan and India, while
> only to a small degree, trade with each other, they co-exist, i
> can't see Israel and Iran doing that once Iran gains nuclear
> capabilities and it'd only be a matter of time before one of
> them is launching a missile over to the other. Maybe i'm wrong,
> maybe once they both have nuclear weapons they'll agree they
> don't both wish to be destroyed and then skip a merry ring a
> rosey together, however i doubt it

We just don't know that. No-one has ever had the stupidity to start a nuclear war, and with all these bullying tactics, it'll be us in the west that eventually push things too far, to the point where these smaller, repressed nations, have no option but to fight back.

> China ... surely they are a threat ...
>
> Why exactly?

Well I wasn't really selecting them as a particular threat, more as a way of illustrating they are as good a target as any other country ... communist state, nuclear technology ... didn't do much for the Soviets ...

Borat wrote:
> Another nation wishes to test the nuclear water and use the
> technology itself, yet we step in and say 'Hey, you can't have
> that, you can't be trusted with it!' who was there to tell us
> that when we were dabbling with huge warheads, and terms like
> 'Mutually Assured Destruction' were being used? No-one. So
> what gives us the right to A) Deprive a nation of a self
> sufficient nuclear program .... and B) to say 'you can't be
> trusted with that, you don't share our views' ...

Maybe the Cold War standoff was a wake up to the world of just how close we came to tipping over the edge and so it's wiser to avoid any type of similar situation happening again, which don't kid yourself Israel and Iran would be.

> To me it's just down to a form of control. We like to think
> we're the most evolved society here in the west, but you only
> have to watch TV or read the news to see we haven't got a clue
> what we're doing. So who are we to force our beliefs on other
> nations like that? The guy may have said he'd wipe us off the
> face of the planet, but he knows full well that if one ICBM
> leaves his soil with no warning ... his country, as it was, will
> cease to exist. It's the same with North Korea. They know full
> well they would be completely gone if they fired even a firework
> towards another country.

They fired a couple of warheads into the ocean quite pitifully yet are still here.
The point i'm debating is that a nation where its leader has said it wishes to destroy another nation isn't one i'd exactly be thrilled with of having nuclear weapons and actually be able to do so. For all the mistakes and hap-hazard way of doing things Bush has done in his handling of the Iraq war that is just a tiny drop in the ocean of the frenzy that would be unleashed if Iran possessed Nuclear Weapons.


> Well I wasn't really selecting them as a particular threat, more
> as a way of illustrating they are as good a target as any other
> country ... communist state, nuclear technology ... didn't do
> much for the Soviets ...

Heh having lived in China it's progressively getting about as communist as America. The Chinese are more than warming to the ideals of greed and capitalism don't worry about that.

Kawada wrote:

> Borat wrote:
> Another nation wishes to test the nuclear water and use the
> technology itself, yet we step in and say 'Hey, you can't have
> that, you can't be trusted with it!' who was there to tell us
> that when we were dabbling with huge warheads, and terms like
> 'Mutually Assured Destruction' were being used? No-one. So
> what gives us the right to A) Deprive a nation of a self
> sufficient nuclear program .... and B) to say 'you can't be
> trusted with that, you don't share our views' ...

The problem with Iran is that the president has stated that he wishes to wipe another nation off the map and is not cooperating with requests from other nations to stop a programme that could carry out that wish.

If he did cooperate a compromise could be reached to stop this tension.

> To me it's just down to a form of control. We like to think
> we're the most evolved society here in the west, but you only
> have to watch TV or read the news to see we haven't got a clue
> what we're doing. So who are we to force our beliefs on other
> nations like that? The guy may have said he'd wipe us off the
> face of the planet, but he knows full well that if one ICBM
> leaves his soil with no warning ... his country, as it was,
> will
> cease to exist. It's the same with North Korea. They know
> full
> well they would be completely gone if they fired even a
> firework
> towards another country.

Yes if a country like Iran, North Korea etc did show any form of agression they know they'd be in big trouble like Japan in WW2 but the fact is the potential is there and with the leaders of these countires not having the best track record the fear of an attack is justified.

> Heh having lived in China it's progressively getting about as
> communist as America. The Chinese are more than warming to the
> ideals of greed and capitalism don't worry about that.

I don't really see China as a threat to world peace, OK they've not got the best relations with certain countries but they're not agressive like some countries.

I personally back any sanctions against Iran regarding nuclear issues. If say the president is ousted and a more liberal leader is put in power I'm all for reviewing the sanctions and trying again to make better relations but with the current leader I can't see it happening.

Borat wrote:
> My knowledge on the subject is fairly limited, but from what I
> understand, we (being part of the UN security council) have
> deemed it acceptable for Iran to use Nuclear power, but NOT to
> enrich its own nuclear fuels, in case these are used in the
> construction of weapons. As far as I'm aware there is no proof
> that Iran plan to use this material for use in weapons, and in
> my personal opinion, they should have the right to enrich
> nuclear fuels in the same way that we do and many other
> countries in the UN.

First off, lets put this into the correct perspective. Uranium enrichment isnt widespread. Theres probably about a dozen countries that take part in the process. And most of them do so under joint programs too so they dont have sole control over it.
So its not true to make it seem like everybody does it and we're just bullying poor little Iran.

Secondly, Iran has a long history of being deceptive about its program. It looks almost certain that they have bought technology on the black market from Abdul Qadeer Khan. What do you really think the goals of a secret nuclear program were? Why do they need to be secretive and lie about their program when they are members of the NPT and thus could probably have access to the latest civilian technology anyway.

> What
> gives us the right to tell other nations how they can live, what
> they can and can't do?

If Iran has the right to do as it pleases then so does the rest of the world. Iran can exercise its right to have uranium enrichment, so why cant the rest of the world exercise its right to exclude Iran and to impose sanctions?

Having said all that, the situation does have many parallels with Iraq. Here we have a country thats proven to be deceptive in the past now proclaiming its innocence. And simply nobody is prepared to believe them without certain concessions.

My tinternet connection died on me the other night so didn't get chance to reply.

All good points though folks, and Kawada - good bit of banter as always :)

I know I come across as a pedantic cranky old git sometimes ...

Borat wrote:
> I know I come across as a pedantic cranky old git sometimes ...


'tis why we get along :-D

the problem is that iran is unpredictable, stubborn to the point of looking aggressive, secretive, apprently harbouring terrorist groups, funding and supporting terrorist groups (all debateable but if we use the correct term some of these groups are. But then depending how you think so are some countries).

We don't know whether they really have no intentions for nuclear weapons. words are meaningless and cheap, i doubt that they won't dabble in creating nuclear weapons and seem mad and dangerous enough to use them.

Still, iran could be just trying to act big and it could go horribly wrong or tensions will be an all time high. Can't see either side becoming friends anytime soon.

Sorry spoonbeast, when I started to read your post I thought you were describing America =)

Yeah they're both the same. But which one is more evil?

Whatever is said, it's likely that Iran may well be developing nuclear arms; if thay had nothing to hide, they wouldn't have minded the UN having a quick peek. Either they're paranoid, or more likely, developing armaments; and this may trigger an arms race with Israel, who already have a nuclear arsenal.

And that wouldn't be pleasant, but you also need to consider the fact it's pretty damn likely that the Iranians are funding/suppling a fair number of terrorists... with an atomically tooled-up Iran, that may pose further questions.

All I'm sure of is that Iran is not the sort of country that can or should be trusted, and that its leadership is doing nothing for the region's peace process, if that is to ever come to anything.