Should Iran have nuclear technology ?

Is it not the right of every nation to pursue technology which will provide secure energy for their citizens beyond the era of reliance on fossil fuels regardless of their religious beliefs ?

Would it not serve the interests of peace in the region to have an indigenously appointed neutral government/state in the middle east with a nuclear deterrent to maintain a standoff, keep Israel in check and limit American domination of the region ?

Unlike the Pakistani president Musharraf and for all the oppression I hear of about Iran, their leader was still democratically elected where as in previous times going back to the Shah, they were installed, endorsed and enforced by foreign interests mostly western.

What thinks you ?
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
ABSOLUTELY!

1. To help improve their scarce energy resources via a clean and efficient energy resource that every other right-wing religious fascist state seems to endorse.

2. To equalise the military imbalance in the Middle-East.

3. To finally nuke those Zionist Imperiliast Oppressors back to hell where they belong and finally get the Global Islamic State off the ground. Shame that all that will be left will be a radiocative wasteland populated by genetic freaks, but who said world domination and destruction of your enemies would be easy?
 

bruno

est malade
3. To finally nuke those Zionist Imperiliast Oppressors back to hell where they belong and finally get the Global Islamic State off the ground. Shame that all that will be left will be a radiocative wasteland populated by genetic freaks, but who said world domination and destruction of your enemies would be easy?
yes, iran is just itching for the chance to drop a nuclear bomb on israel (a magic bomb that only kills jews and doesen't affect syria, lebanon and jordan in any way) and have itself - it's people, culture, leadership - obliterated a hundred times over in turn. surely you don't believe this garbage. there is a reason why nuclear status is so coveted, do your research buick!

and to answer the original question, yes, i think they have the right to develop a civilian program and a weapons program providing it's in accordance with existing international law. that is the law that applies to everyone, not the special tailor-made one hastily imposed by a fraction of the international community.
 

swears

preppy-kei
If Iran had them and Israel didn't, I wouldn't want Israel to. The less states with nuclear weapons the better, I am rather sceptical about all their need for "nuclear energy".
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
If Iran had them and Israel didn't, I wouldn't want Israel to. The less states with nuclear weapons the better, I am rather sceptical about all their need for "nuclear energy".

Yeah mee too. I find this 'noocleer' energy thing a bit of bullshit really.
 
The bottom line is, we all know what president Bush's agenda is

Keep up the agressive rhetoric, plant seeds of fear in the American public, use sanctions like they did in Iran to soften it up so they can target it for military assault, destroy it's infrastructure and control it's resources before Iraq gets the bomb to act as a deterrent.

and we all know what Ahmedinajad's agenda is

Develop a self reliant civilian nuclear program to guarantee on going energy supply after the oil runs out with accompanying weapons program before America winds up in Iran, frees up it's ground troops, replenishes it's arsenal and looks towards Iraq for regime change and 'democratization' :slanted:

I think we all know too, that talk off Iraq using nukes against Israel and the US is just scaremongering and not likely to happen for the simple reason that no one in their right mind would do that and there is nothing to suggest Ahmedinajad is not in his right mind or stupid.

Bush on the other hand I wonder about ?

Will he bomb the nuclear site in question before his term of office runs out to initiate another war or allow Israel to do the same and pander to America's military industrial complex ?

Given their track record I would think so but the fact remains, that Iraq is well within it's rights to continue with both it's programs and should be allowed to do so.

IMHO
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
and we all know what Ahmedinajad's agenda is

Develop a self reliant civilian nuclear program to guarantee on going energy supply after the oil runs out with accompanying weapons program before America winds up in Iran, frees up it's ground troops, replenishes it's arsenal and looks towards Iraq for regime change and 'democratization'
And maybe provoking enough sabre rattling from America to remind everyone of why they need a strong central government and shouldn't complain if student activists, journalists, intellectuals etc keep disappearing... it's not just western leaders that benefit from maintaining a sense of external threat, y'know.
 

swears

preppy-kei
And maybe provoking enough sabre rattling from America to remind everyone of why they need a strong central government and shouldn't complain if student activists, journalists, intellectuals etc keep disappearing... it's not just western leaders that benefit from maintaining a sense of external threat, y'know.

Yeah, can people stop taking sides here? My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
1st Qn: Has any government ever managed to obtain working nuclear power generation technology and not within ten years converted that technical knowledge into a working nuclear weapons programme?

2nd Qn: The nuclear anti-proliferation treaty: Does this expressly forbid any new countries from gaining nuclear weapons?

Observation (@Buick) I'd probably be more worried about North Korea than Iran!
 
Last edited:

bruno

est malade
And maybe provoking enough sabre rattling from America to remind everyone of why they need a strong central government and shouldn't complain if student activists, journalists, intellectuals etc keep disappearing... it's not just western leaders that benefit from maintaining a sense of external threat, y'know.
exactly. undermining reformist elements, radicalising hardliners and inflaming nationalism across the political spectrum, excellent recipe for reform. now that the west (that counts) has chosen to ignore on whim the concept of national sovereignty no one in their right minds would consider disarming, rather the opposite. and no one in their right minds would believe the other parties' assurances of peaceful intentions. three cheers for moderation.
 
Would the reformation work along sectarian lines ? US style 'democratization' lines ? How exactly does it work in the middle east ? Or doesn't it. It doesnt seem to be an issue the west can force so maybe best to leave well enough alone.
 
D

droid

Guest
1st Qn: Has any government ever managed to obtain working nuclear power generation technology and not within ten years converted that technical knowledge into a working nuclear weapons programme?

Canada? They make reactors, dont know if they have any themesleves. They also export Uranium to the US.

Yugoslavia and Romania both have civilian nuclear power that developed from adandoned military development. Theres probably a few more states like this.

2nd Qn: The nuclear anti-proliferation treaty: Does this expressly forbid any new countries from gaining nuclear weapons?

Only if theyre signed up to it. Therefore India, Pakistan and Israel are not bound by it, and can apparently make as many nukes as they want, but Iran is and therefore cannot. We can also ignore the fact that the US (along with most other nuclear states) are all in violation of article six of the treaty.

After all - theyre the good guys, and international laws are only for the weak (and non-nuclear) states.
 
How about a sub-critical thorium reactor swap for oil ?

In a non-proliferation sense, there are also good reasons to prefer a sub-critical thorium reactor, as it is impossible to make weapons-grade materials from thorium.

Even traces of unburnt U-233 in thorium reactor waste products are more difficult to convert into a usable nuclear weapon than U-235 or Pu-239. Imagine the West offering thorium-fuelled ADS reactors to countries such as Iran or North Korea: this would satisfy their demands for cheap nuclear power, but entirely avert the risk of the civil nuclear program leading to the development of nuclear weapons.

The other key advantage of the ADS design is that it can be used to dispose of dangerous weapons-grade material and commercial reactor by-products in a similar way to mixed thorium fuel.


http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348
FlowerNuke.jpg
 

shudder

Well-known member
1st Qn: Has any government ever managed to obtain working nuclear power generation technology and not within ten years converted that technical knowledge into a working nuclear weapons programme?

as droid said, we (canada) make reactors, and have nuclear plants here, but no weapons... although I don't know what we sell to whom, and for what purposes, etc. Also, there was some scandal a few years ago when it was revealed that Canada had stored for the US some nuclear warheads during the cold war...
 

nomos

Administrator
Canada? They make reactors, dont know if they have any themesleves. They also export Uranium to the US.
We have them. They may be old enough now to pass as 'vintage' or 'retro' because there's been a moratorium on building any new ones in Canada for a couple of decades. The moratorium is based on there not being any agreement on their safety. In true 1st world fashion, though, that hasn't stopped Canada for doing a nice sideline business selling 'CANDU' reactors (the name is so hokey they have to be innocuous, right?) to Argentina, China, Romania and South Korea.
 
Last edited:
1st Qn: Has any government ever managed to obtain working nuclear power generation technology and not within ten years converted that technical knowledge into a working nuclear weapons programme?

Historically, the opposite - seemingly - has tended to be the case, numerous countries during the cold war first engaging in nuclear weapons research, with most of them later abandoning such programmes and turning instead to constructing civilian and/or research nuclear power plants and reactors. About thirty countries were engaged in nuclear weapons research programmes during the cold war - complete list here, with most of these now signed up to the NPT. (South Africa, interestingly, is the only country with the status of being an ex-nuclear-weapons country, having dismantled its six warheads in 1991). Obviously, this list excludes those other countries where nuclear warheads belonging to other countries are (or have been) "merely" deployed. For instance, the US positioning of nuclear warheads in Turkey along its border with the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, a move that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Droid said:
Yugoslavia and Romania both have civilian nuclear power that developed from adandoned military development. Theres probably a few more states like this.

Quite. It may come as a surprise to many, but approximately seventy countries have (or used to have) nuclear power plants of some kind - full list here, which - very conveniently - also includes a listing of every nuclear power plant in the world.
 
The Neocons' Final Impotent Acting-Out

With more and more countries eagerly, deliriously joining the queue to dismiss Bush and Co as the "devil"***, the hyperstitional scenario outlined below appears increasingly credible.

bush%20devil.jpg
"The problem with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur"


[*** "Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world. "---Hugo Chavez UN Address.].

imagee6b9d4f2-b063-4166-8f6e-a707478d350d.jpg
"It says so here! Look!!!"




“The US is updating contingency plans for a strike to cripple Iran’s atomic weapon’s program if international diplomacy fails…The plan calls for a rolling 5 day bombing campaign against 400 key targets, including 24 nuclear related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters” -----Ian Bruce, “US spells out plan to bomb Iran” , UK Herald

“Justice has become the victim of force and aggression.” ---Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; address to the United Nations 9-19-06.

060306_fw_cartoon.jpg


Recent reports suggest that the Bush strategy is going forward despite warnings from high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and respected members of the foreign policy establishment. A recent article in Time magazine by Michael Duffy outlines a realistic scenario for the initial phase of the conflict:

“It will take a few days with thousands of sorties, satellite and laser-guided bombs will be aimed at targets—1,500 already planned by the Pentagon—and will try to infiltrate armed concrete, under which some of the nuclear sites are hidden… The sites are spread across the country, some of them exposed, some operating under the guise of regular plants, and others buried deep under the ground….The military offensive requires activating nearly all types of planes in the army’s possession: Warplanes and stealth vehicles, F-15 and F-16 aircrafts taking off from the land and an F-18 which takes off from an aircraft carrier.

030102toles_iran.jpg


[ ... ]

How can there be peace if one country will not agree not to attack another?

Iran has no choice but to take Bush’s saber rattling seriously and prepare for war. The administration’s stated goal of “regime change” poses a credible “existential threat” to current Iranian government and they must plan accordingly. They should expect that the US will prevail handily in the massive air campaign which will destroy much of Iran’s civil infrastructure leaving it in a state similar to that of Lebanon. But, following the aerial bombardment the real war will begin. (As was true in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon) If Iran intends to remove the persistent threat created by the neocon plan for regional hegemony, it must anticipate a decades-long struggle which will be aimed at undermining the ability of the United States to wage war. That means they will probably focus on targets that will destroy the US economy; asymmetrical attacks on the currency, attacks on tankers, pipelines, oil-platforms and energy sites around the world, destabilizing regional allies of America (particularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan) arming guerilla groups in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a concerted campaign to disrupt the flow of oil to western markets.

Iran_nuke.jpg


It will also do what it can to realign the world in a way that challenges and ultimately discards the United Nations which merely serves the imperial ambitions of the US and its European allies. To that end, it must strengthen ties with Russia, China, India, Venezuela, Brazil and the non-aligned states. It will focus on isolating the US from its allies by turning world opinion against the aggressor and doing whatever is possible to shatter the trans-Atlantic Alliance. Once the US is separated from Europe, NATO and the UN will collapse, and the war will quickly come to a close.

A war with Iran will be catastrophic, but it may also have the unintended effect of establishing greater parity among the nations by replacing the American-European paradigm with a more equitable system. It could, in fact, restore our commitment to the basic principles of national sovereignty, self determination, and human rights.

Still, the cost is bound to be substantial. A war with Iran will produce hundreds of thousands of casualties, topple the Superpower model of global rule and, very likely, bring an end to the new American century.

lk_iran_oil_500.jpg


$$$$$: US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who taught strategy and military operations at the National War College and who just finished a paper entitled “Considering the US Military option for Iran,” appeared on CNN this week and said:

“The order has been given (to strike Iran) In fact, we’ve probably been executing operations for at least 18 months…I’ve talked to Iranians (and they tell me) we’ve captured some people who worked with them (American Special-Ops) We’ve confirmed they’re there.” Gardiner added that “US naval forces have been alerted for deployment. That’s a major step. ..And the (battle) plan has been sent to the White House.” --$$$$$

Infographic-Iran's-C.jpg




FROM The Surprising End of the New American Century , By Mike Whitney
 
Should we be starting a new thread asking "Should Egypt have nuclear Technology?"

Or another thread about Saudi Arabia's current nuclear-weapons-development mode, or the on-going US development of "smart" (ie they kill civilians, not terrorists, as with Israel's precision-guided bombing of Lebanon)) tactical mini-nukes, and so on?

What's with this Cranial fellow, a conspiracy theory propagator so committed to the cause that he needs a new one each day before rising for breakfast?

title_art.jpg
 
Top