Iran should be allowed to build the Bomb

You want us to forget our legal nuclear technology rights while you are modernizing your nukes. Why???!!!:?:


If you read my entire post you would have seen this:

They need to allow Iran it's right to enrich uraniam for civil uses, which the West do not want.

They are allowed to modernize their nuclear stockpile under NPT. The powers, specifically Russia and U.S have been following NPT for quite some time now. The West do not want this, but I feel it isn't a right call for them to do. However, you must also realize that there have been U.N resolutions calling for Iran to stop enriching and comply with IAEA.
 
Right I'm comfortable believing that the current regime in Tehran will only enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, given the rhetoric they spout.
 
Right I'm comfortable believing that the current regime in Tehran will only enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, given the rhetoric they spout.


Which is why the West does not want it, but it truly is their right to be able to enrich their own uranium as long as it is proven to be for peaceful means. The reason this is happening is because IAEA can not prove 100% Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. I also believe Israel should not be in the negotiation process if they are not going to join NPT.
 
If you read my entire post you would have seen this:



They are allowed to modernize their nuclear stockpile under NPT. The powers, specifically Russia and U.S have been following NPT for quite some time now. The West do not want this, but I feel it isn't a right call for them to do. However, you must also realize that there have been U.N resolutions calling for Iran to stop enriching and comply with IAEA.


[FONT=&quot]My question has just one answer. The US doesn’t want lose her domination in the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Any technology especially new one has the potential to use in military weapons. For example about nuclear technology, you can make nukes. About Space technology, ballistic missile is possible. About Software technology, cyber attack is possible. And the other technologies….[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In more than ten years negotiation with the west we have found that the main problem for west is not Iran’s nuclear activities. The main problem is Iran’s independent policies. In Moscow negotiations they suggested us to have just the permission of 3.5% enrichment technology not 20% while this suggestion was Iran’s suggestion at 2 years ago. Even before it at six or seven years ago we suggested them to have just a part of 3.5% enrichment technology and made the last step of it in another country for more trust but they didn’t accept it. Why?
Today the countries such as Japan, South Korea and some European countries who are members of IAEA, like Iran, are allowed to make enriched uranium till 90% or more. So what is the different between them and Iran? The different is that these countries’ security is completely depended to the US but Iran no. These countries politician can’t drink a glass of water without US permission and shall consult with the US before making any decision but Iran isn’t.These countries are in west camp but Iran isn't.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

[FONT=&quot]My question has just one answer. The US doesn’t want lose her domination in the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Any technology especially new one has the potential to use in military weapons. For example about nuclear technology, you can make nukes. About Space technology, ballistic missile is possible. About Software technology, cyber attack is possible. And the other technologies….[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In more than ten years negotiation with the west we have found that the main problem for west is not Iran’s nuclear activities. The main problem is Iran’s independent policies. In Moscow negotiations they suggested us to have just the permission of 3.5% enrichment technology not 20% while this suggestion was Iran’s suggestion at 2 years ago. Even before it at six or seven years ago we suggested them to have just a part of 3.5% enrichment technology and made the last step of it in another country for more trust but they didn’t accept it. Why?
Today the countries such as Japan, South Korea and some European countries who are members of IAEA, like Iran, allow to make enriched uranium till 90% or more. So what is the different between them and Iran? The different is that these countries’ security is completely depended to the US but Iran no. These countries politician can’t drink a glass of water without US permission and shall consult with the US before making any decision but Iran isn’t.These countries are in west camp but Iran isn't.
[/FONT]

The difference is that Iran violated the NPT. They were not trustworthy anymore so the IAEA had to find out if Iran's nuclear program was solely for peacefull purposes. Iran says it is but they also signed the NPT and did not abide by it. All the IAEA wanted was shut down enrigment and proof that the program is peacefull, that's all. Up untill now Iran did neither and then they are amazed about the sanctions.

On the other hand, why does Iran need nuclear power? They have an abundance of oil, but almost no refinery capability. Wouldn't it be better for Iran to invest in that? Now they have to import almost all their gasoline. They also have lot's of sunshine and open skies so why not invest in solar power plants like so many other nations are doing? Who believes a country with one of the biggest oil supplies in the world that says it needs nuclear power for electricity?

Ever wondered why the US is the only superpower left today? If you do in Iran what an average citizen is allowed to do in the US they put you in jail.
The US is still on top of technology, economy (and no, China has not most of the US debt) and freedom and stand by their friends and allies. Thanks to them I'm born in a free country.
 
On the other hand, why does Iran need nuclear power? They have an abundance of oil, but almost no refinery capability. Wouldn't it be better for Iran to invest in that? Now they have to import almost all their gasoline. They also have lot's of sunshine and open skies so why not invest in solar power plants like so many other nations are doing? Who believes a country with one of the biggest oil supplies in the world that says it needs nuclear power for electricity?
good suggestions and I will email them to Ahmadinejad to discuss about them in the next cabinet meeting. But I have a better idea. Is it not better for west to prepare a schedule just for Iran which in it the red lines in different sciences and technologies be cleared and specified for us? Then we will know in which technology we will be allowed to invest and in which range. You know about the nuclear energy we thought that the red lines just had been defined in IAEA but it seems there are much more red line except that we thought.
 
Last edited:
good suggestions and I will email them to Ahmadinejad to discusses about them in the next cabinet meeting. But I have a better idea. Is it not better for west to prepare a schedule just for Iran which in it the red lines in different sciences and technologies be cleared and specified for us? Then we will know in which technology we will be allowed to invest and in which range. You know about the nuclear energy we thought that the red lines just had been defined in IAEA but it seems there are much more red line except that we thought.

Kick the Mullah's back to their mosques, create a real democracy and make peace with Israel and the west will embrace you and you are in for a marvelous time akin to your great ancesters who were destroyed by religious fanatics.
 
What could Iran achieve with a few nuclear weapons? The historical record offers a clear answer: very little.

Pessimists worry that a nuclear Iran would be able to blackmail Israel, seize major oil fields, or force the United States out of the Middle East. But they ignore a key lesson of the nuclear age: nuclear weapons are not very useful for coercion. Israel, for example, did not suddenly acquire the ability to push around its neighbors when it obtained nuclear weapons. (If it had, it might have dissuaded Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons today.) Nor did China, North Korea, South Africa, or any other state that has ever built nuclear weapons. The reality is that nuclear weapons have never been very useful tools of blackmail.

The reason is that nuclear threats lack credibility. If Iran ever used nuclear weapons against one of its neighbors, it would suffer unprecedented international isolation, unify the region against it, and even trigger nuclear retaliation from the United States or Israel. Given these prospects, Iran's neighbors are likely to doubt whether its nuclear threats are actually sincere.

At best, nuclear weapons are credible tools of self-defense. But we need not worry that a nuclear Iran will wield vast new coercive leverage in the Middle East. In 1983, Robert McNamara observed that nuclear weapons "are totally useless - except only to deter one's opponent from using them." This lesson is worth remembering today.
 
Directly yes, but the fear of its potential use is a potent weapon. Would anyone dare to invade Iran if they had a nuclear weapon? Would Iraq have been invaded if they had one?

Why do we want to invade Iran and should Iraq have been invaded at all?

Seems to me the argument over Iranian nuclear weapons is more about keeping Iran at a point where we can dictate their future than protection against any genuine threat a nuclear armed Iran could offer.

Perhaps this says more about our ambitions than Iranian.
 
No matter what anyone says, Iran is not a threat to the U.S. and not even close to being a threat to the U.S. The forces of the U.S. are so extensive and so overwhelming on so many dimensions that for Iran to attack the U.S. would be sheer madness. The Iranians know this. The U.S. knows this. Israel knows this. Anyone who says or thinks that Iran is a threat to the U.S. that should be taken seriously is talking nonsense.

Iran has no reason for attacking the U.S. It has nothing to gain and everything to lose. It has no national interest at stake. By the same token, the U.S. has no justifiable reason for attacking Iran because Iran is not doing anything that can remotely be construed as aggression against the U.S. Of course, the U.S. can always create an incident to convince gullible Americans that the U.S. must attack Iran.

The public statements by the U.S. on Israel do not unambiguously suggest that the U.S. is reining in Israel as it should. For Obama to say that he wants a diplomatic solution is all well and good, but the fact is that he is not acting diplomatically by serving up one threat after another and tightening the screws on Iran. For Obama to say that he is moving in lockstep with Israel can be taken to mean that he is in control or that Israel is in control or that whatever Israel does meets with U.S. approval. Obama’s language is too ambiguous to be reassuring. It is not even clear from Obama’s public statements that he even knows what he wants from Iran. He has said that he wants their assurance that they will not build a nuclear weapon. They’ve already said this many times, and the IAEA inspectors have access to Iran internally in order to verify it.

The U.S. has a trumped up reason to attack Iran, which is that Iran might develop and produce a nuclear weapon at some point in the future. Even if it did, it still would not be a threat to the U.S. because the U.S. can retaliate with such overwhelming force. Every statement that Iran makes about the use of force is a statement about retaliation against aggression from the U.S. Their threats are statements about how they might defend themselves. If one compares the strength and military experience of the two sides, it is crystal clear that Iran’s threats lack credibility. Whatever harms she might impose are minuscule compared to what the U.S. will do to Iran in a military campaign.

The "military option" is aggression against a people that has done nothing to America and shown no intention to begin aggressing against America. It is the same as the aggression against Iraq in 2003. It is the same as Germany’s aggression against Poland in 1939.
 
I disagree with the notion that nuclear weapons are useless. If they are why is Iran pursuing them?

I strongly oppose new nuclear powers no matter which side they belong to. The more nuclear powers the higher the chance of something going terrible wrong. It's like traffic, the more cars the higher the chance of collisions. This is not an if but when. Remember the situation with the Norwegian scientific rocket launch? If this would have happend during the cold war nuclear weapons already would have been used. What would happen if Israel or Iran launch a satellite and there is a communication problem between the two. Could either one of them afford to wait to see if the cargo is peaceful or nuclear? I don't think so, they have to immediately retaliate because the time to act is very limited.

I call the notion that nuclear weapons are useless old fashioned nuclear thinking. During the cold war we had two military blocks. Both thought the other was going to attack, none of them did.
Pakistan showed the modern power of nuclear weapons. They used it as an umbrella for a terrorist group that resides within their borders and is assisted by the Pakistani intelligence. India was not able to retaliate without risking a nuclear war.
Iran threathend to close the strait of Hormuz. They can't succesfully do that with conventional means, but who is going to risk armageddon when they do have nuclear weapons? The US is safe but the whole ME and (Southern) Europe is not. It's what I've said before, who has the guts to find out that Iran is bluffing?

Many specialist think nuclear weapons are useless. Her is my definition of specialists:
Specialists are people who tell you what is going to happen and after it happend they tell you why it didn't happend as they told you.
 
I disagree with the notion that nuclear weapons are useless. If they are why is Iran pursuing them?

Because since 2001 the Iranians have seen Americans playing regime change around them and in one of those cases it was just for shits and giggles as such the Iranians probably put down the Quran long enough to see North Korea sinking South Korean ships and saying "can't touch us we have the bomb"

IF and it is just an if because Iran to date has denied it wants the bomb and to be honest they have probably lied to me the least in the last 30 years so I have no reason not to believe them it is purely for defence or to be even more precise to keep the Americans out.



I strongly oppose new nuclear powers no matter which side they belong to. The more nuclear powers the higher the chance of something going terrible wrong. It's like traffic, the more cars the higher the chance of collisions. This is not an if but when. Remember the situation with the Norwegian scientific rocket launch? If this would have happend during the cold war nuclear weapons already would have been used. What would happen if Israel or Iran launch a satellite and there is a communication problem between the two. Could either one of them afford to wait to see if the cargo is peaceful or nuclear? I don't think so, they have to immediately retaliate because the time to act is very limited.

I would suggest that this would be a very good reason for Iran and Israel to improve their communications now wouldn't it and since the world has managed to avoid blowing itself to smithereens in the 70 years it has had nuclear weapons a simple telephone call works wonders.

I call the notion that nuclear weapons are useless old fashioned nuclear thinking. During the cold war we had two military blocks. Both thought the other was going to attack, none of them did.
Pakistan showed the modern power of nuclear weapons. They used it as an umbrella for a terrorist group that resides within their borders and is assisted by the Pakistani intelligence. India was not able to retaliate without risking a nuclear war.
Iran threathend to close the strait of Hormuz. They can't succesfully do that with conventional means, but who is going to risk armageddon when they do have nuclear weapons? The US is safe but the whole ME and (Southern) Europe is not. It's what I've said before, who has the guts to find out that Iran is bluffing?

Oh horse chips, the only way Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz is to physically attack someone passing through the straits and the response to that would be either a military one or an economic one and most likely both and this is the bit that proves nuclear weapons are a waste of money as a threat.
If Iran was to respond with a nuclear strike on lets say Spain just for fun right next door to Spain is France who would more than likely turn a large area of Iran into a glowing waste land and if they didn't Britain, Israel or the USA (and that is just the short list of trigger happy countries) would more than likely do it for them, now I accept that does not help Spain but I am prepared to bet that Iran has a leadership that would prefer to live and that will prevent them making Spain glow in the dark.

MAD for all its stupidity works.
 
Many specialist think nuclear weapons are useless. Her is my definition of specialists:
Specialists are people who tell you what is going to happen and after it happend they tell you why it didn't happend as they told you.
Is Experience Overrated?

The term specialist is defined as a person who has a special skill or knowledge in some particular field; an expert a specialist; or an authority. I have been a German officer for over 25 years – that makes me an authority and an specialist in my niche. Think about what makes you an specialist/expert.

Do you have real life experience doing what you do?
Have you gone to school or had any specialized training for what you do?
Do you do what you do at a higher level than the average person?
Have you done extensive research on your topic?
Have you taught someone to do what it is you do?

Answering YES to any of these qualifies you as an specialist in your niche. Believe me when I say that it’s very easy to become immersed in your field and perhaps create professional relationships with others — and then start to think that everyone knows and understands what it is you do. It’s easy to get caught up believing that, but it is far from the truth. In fact very few people probably totally understand what it is you do or at least how to get the results that you get in your business. Have you ever been stuck in your business because you didn’t think you were an specialist or expert?

Let me tell a little story.
I have worked for many years in the Intelligence Service and one of my tasks was to provide information to the German government. Many of that information was 100% confirmed as accurate, current information. This information was not always consistent with the policies pursued by the politicians at the time, so they said the opposite, or distorted the information. And when the truth was found to be the opposite then the blame frequently shifted to the "experts" who had "given the politicians incorrect information"
 
Actually, there is no evidence in the public domain that Iran is currently testing a weapon, making a weapon or even enriching uranium to a level that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

The conflict with Iran is not over any observable pursuit of nuclear weapons, but over its insistence on enriching uranium to low levels that are not suitable for weapons use at a declared facility under IAEA seal and surveillance.

Iran insists that this enrichment is purely for nuclear energy use, and we have no clear evidence with which to refute that claim.

This is very different from the situation in North Korea, which has already tested a nuclear weapon.

Iran's enrichment is a valid concern because it will shorten the lead time for developing a nuclear weapon should Iran decided (or have decided) to do so in the future. But enrichment to low levels under safeguards is not the same thing as pursuing a nuclear weapon.

For starters, countries have a right to enrich uranium for peaceful use, and Iran cannot be indefinitely denied that right.

The objective of deterrence is to prevent aggression and war, not necessarily to be able to fight a war. In the past, we’ve often thought that the ability to deter depended on the ability to fight: to be able to defend yourself and to be able to go on the offense. Whether that logic applies to nuclear deterrence has been a matter of no little contention.

It’s usually clear when deterrence has failed. If the Soviets had invaded Western Europe during the Cold War, deterrence would have failed. Some argue that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was a deterrence failure. It’s very difficult, however, to know for certain when deterrence is working. Does the fact that the USSR never invaded Western Europe mean that U.S. extended deterrence worked? That something we wanted to prevent, or deter, didn’t happen doesn’t necessarily mean that what we did worked. Conclusively demonstrating why something did not occur is always problematical.
 
Because since 2001 the Iranians have seen Americans playing regime change around them and in one of those cases it was just for shits and giggles as such the Iranians probably put down the Quran long enough to see North Korea sinking South Korean ships and saying "can't touch us we have the bomb"

That is my point. If Iran has the bomb they could sent a proxy force (Hezbollah) to Israel and warn Israel not to invade Lebanon because that will trigger a nuclear war. Pakistan already did that with India.

IF and it is just an if because Iran to date has denied it wants the bomb and to be honest they have probably lied to me the least in the last 30 years so I have no reason not to believe them it is purely for defence or to be even more precise to keep the Americans out.

Iran already did enrich to above 20% and the IAEA was refused to search that (military) facility. They also found proof of research in nuclear capable missiles. Again the IAEA was refused to do some more searches.

I would suggest that this would be a very good reason for Iran and Israel to improve their communications now wouldn't it and since the world has managed to avoid blowing itself to smithereens in the 70 years it has had nuclear weapons a simple telephone call works wonders.

I fully agree. But so far a "hot line" between Israel and Iran does not exist.

Iran into a glowing waste land and if they didn't Britain, Israel or the USA (and that is just the short list of trigger happy countries) would more than likely do it for them, now I accept that does not help Spain but I am prepared to bet that Iran has a leadership that would prefer to live and that will prevent them making Spain glow in the dark.

I know that, but that is not my point. My point is: who has the guts to ignore the threat to use nuclear weapons? If a Quds force blows up something in Paris, will NATO retaliate when Iran has the bomb and threatens to use it? Do you think that there is one poltician who dares to set the threat aside and attack Iran?

@Der Alte :

I don't call myself a specialist and I don't have the degrees the specialists have. What I do know is that history is full of mistakes made by specialists.
Don't get me wrong, I don't call them or you dumb people, they (and you) aren't.

During the 2nd Gulf War there was a Belgian military expert from the KMS (West Point of Belgium) who came to explain what the Americans next steps were. The next day he first had ro explain why the Americans did it differntly. And this happend many times.

Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London
"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."

Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s
"The phonograph has no commercial value at all."

Pierre Pachet, British surgeon and Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."

Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal (UK), 1957
"Space travel is bunk."
two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth)

one more : Samuel Pierpont Langley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, and one of the most esteemed scientists in the country. Langley was the only flight experimenter to get government funding. His "aerodrome" was tested twice, launched from a catapult atop a houseboat in the Potomac River — the last test coming just days before the Wright Brothers' flight. The Wright brothers attended high school but did not receive diplomas.

Arrogant Experts
It is not generally realized that computers, atomic bombs, aeroplanes, spaceships, mobile phones, and many other marvels were all forecast by science‑fiction writers long before they were dreamed of by serious experts. Remember the wrist-watch communicator of Dick Tracy in the 1930s? Therefore, I suggest, that anyone who wants to prophesy the future accurately must be either a writer or at least a reader of science fiction.
 
Back
Top