Why can't Iran have nuclear power?

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

Iran, as you know, wants to have nuclear power, and has taken steps in that direction.

Much of the rest of the world is trying to stop them, despite the fact that Iran has given many assurances that they are not going to build nuclear weapons with the technology.

Does the world have the right to try to stop them. Should they stop them? On what grounds?

M.Dancer · January 16, 2009

Iran, as you know, wants to have nuclear power, and has taken steps in that direction.
Does the world have the right to try to stop them. Should they stop them? On what grounds?

They certainly have the right to have it...but seeing that in the recent past they have violated the NPT, given that they do not need nuclear power, given that there progression towards it leads one to think they are not pursuing civilian nuclear power, it's probably better they shouldn't have it.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

They certainly have the right to have it...but seeing that in the recent past they have violated the NPT,

Iran has not violated the NPT. The US claimed that it did, but they dropped their claim.

given that they do not need nuclear power

Why do you say that?

given that there progression towards it leads one to think they are not pursuing civilian nuclear power, it's probably better they shouldn't have it.

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Because they want nuclear power, you figure they don't want it for civilian nuclear power? Huh?

it's probably better they shouldn't have it.

Better for who?

Wild Bill · January 16, 2009

Iran, as you know, wants to have nuclear power, and has taken steps in that direction.
Much of the rest of the world is trying to stop them, despite the fact that Iran has given many assurances that they are not going to build nuclear weapons with the technology.

Does the world have the right to try to stop them. Should they stop them? On what grounds?

Well, given that Iran has often said that Israel should be wiped from the earth and that the reasons they cite for developing nuclear power don't seem to truly fit their situation, what confidence have they earned for other countries to believe them when they say they aren't going to build nuclear weapons? Particularly when they have massive centrifuge programs that are unnecessary for nuclear power but essential for nuclear weapons?

Iran having nuclear weapons would make it the most powerful state in the Arab World, which has long been one of their goals.

As for the right to stop them, it's more a case of can the world afford NOT to stop them! With nuclear weapons, the consequences of being wrong are so devastating as to be unthinkable. If Iran followed through with nuking Israel, it would be too late to say "Oops! Sorry! Guess we were wrong about that one!"

If someone says he's going to bash your head in with a club and then commences to start carving one from a big piece of wood, does it make sense to wait until he swings it at your head before you decide to defend yourself?

To make it worse, the middle east cannot support the Mutual Assured Destruction policy that kept things stable between the USA and the old USSR. Both countries had enough retaliation capacity to make a first strike unthinkably expensive in terms of the inevitable response. In the case of Iran and Israel, they don't have a nuclear armed submarine navy and Israel is so small that one nuclear strike would likely destroy any response capability. In effect, Iran could strike first without fear of retaliation from Israel.

At that point, what would happen? Would the USA be willing to use nuclear weapons to avenge Israel, with all the problems that would bring down on its head, like dragging other countries into a nuclear conflict? Not likely. It would be more probable that no other country would want to make a horrible situation worse.

Iran could get away with it!

So do you really think that Israel DARES to just sit there and wait for it to happen?

Edited January 16, 2009 by Wild Bill

DogOnPorch · January 16, 2009

To make it worse, the middle east cannot support the Mutual Assured Destruction policy that kept things stable between the USA and the old USSR. Both countries had enough retaliation capacity to make a first strike unthinkably expensive in terms of the inevitable response. In the case of Iran and Israel, they don't have a nuclear armed submarine navy and Israel is so small that one nuclear strike would likely destroy any response capability. In effect, Iran could strike first without fear of retaliation from Israel.

Not to mention that Islam lends itself to similar tactics as seen used by the Japanese. Suicide attacks and what-not.

--------------------------------------

...and then there's Maude!

M.Dancer · January 16, 2009

Iran has not violated the NPT. The US claimed that it did, but they dropped their claim.
Why do you say that?

Because they are in violation.

Iran already had stopped snap IAEA inspections, saying its 2003 agreement was being implemented voluntarily and had not been ratified by Parliament and the Guardian Council, a powerful oversight body dominated by hard-liners. The protocol allows unfettered and unannounced IAEA inspections to ensure overall compliance with the NPT.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sectio...;m=5&y=2006

Oleg Bach · January 16, 2009

Not to mention that Islam lends itself to similar tactics as seen used by the Japanese. Suicide attacks and what-not.
--------------------------------------

...and then there's Maude!

Suicide or Homicide are the same - one is self murder - and the other is the murder of another. Westerners get gleeful when they mention "suicide attacks" - It is a subject that some how gives justification to the idea that these people are so nuts they will kill themselves in order to kill us...there is a great fear of this kind of blind commitment - because we are commited to nothing...and a suicider reminds us that we stand for nothing and are not willing to go the distance for something we believe in because we believe in nothing. Sucide fighter are an embarrassment to the selfish western secular spirit.

noahbody · January 16, 2009

As a rule, it's best not to give Crazy a gun.

segnosaur · January 16, 2009

Iran has not violated the NPT. The US claimed that it did, but they dropped their claim.

Actually, yes they have.

The Institute for Science and International Security (run by one of the former heads of IAEA) has published a paper where they have outlined multiple violations going back several decades, including:

- Undeclared importation of uranium in 1991, 1993, etc.

- Failure to declare various enrichment experiments in 1999

- Performed work with plutonium prior to 1993

(see: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/ir...violations.pdf)

Yes, it is true that NOW Iran has admitted to breaching the NPT and may be acting honestly, but its past actions should give concerns about just how compliant they are. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

given that they do not need nuclear power

Why do you say that?

Probably because of the substantial oil deposits that Iran has.

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Because they want nuclear power, you figure they don't want it for civilian nuclear power? Huh?

The problem is, the way Iran is going about its nuclear program (enriching its own uranium, which means that some material could be used for military as well as civilian purposes) coupled with past NPT violations and statements about 'wiping Israel off the map' should make people cautious.

If Iran were really and truly interested in nuclear power for civilian uses, it has a few options:

- Use uranium that has been enriched by other countries. I'm sure France or Russia would be pleased to sell them pre-enriched uranium)

- Use a reactor design (such as CANDU) which does not require enriched uranium

Edited January 16, 2009 by segnosaur

DogOnPorch · January 16, 2009

Suicide or Homicide are the same - one is self murder - and the other is the murder of another. Westerners get gleeful when they mention "suicide attacks" - It is a subject that some how gives justification to the idea that these people are so nuts they will kill themselves in order to kill us...there is a great fear of this kind of blind commitment - because we are commited to nothing...and a suicider reminds us that we stand for nothing and are not willing to go the distance for something we believe in because we believe in nothing. Sucide fighter are an embarrassment to the selfish western secular spirit.

Islam, in my opinion, is nuts.

-----------------------------

It's a Daisy.

segnosaur · January 16, 2009

Suicide or Homicide are the same - one is self murder - and the other is the murder of another. Westerners get gleeful when they mention "suicide attacks" - It is a subject that some how gives justification to the idea that these people are so nuts they will kill themselves in order to kill us...there is a great fear of this kind of blind commitment - because we are commited to nothing...and a suicider reminds us that we stand for nothing and are not willing to go the distance for something we believe in because we believe in nothing. Sucide fighter are an embarrassment to the selfish western secular spirit.

Just because the average westerner isn't willing to engage in suicide attacks does not mean that 'we believe in nothing' or that we are 'selfish'.

Indeed, remember, many such suicide attacks are religiously motivated, with the promise of '72 virgins' in the afterlife. To me, that sounds a bit selfish.

Commitment is not always bad... commitment to a screwed up ideal based on some bizarre fantasy that allows you to be manipulated pretty much always is bad.

Oleg Bach · January 16, 2009

Islam, in my opinion, is nuts.
-----------------------------

It's a Daisy.

Yes it is! The point I have always made is those that control Islam...are NOT religious --- they are your usual clever powermongering secuarist gangsters who know how to stir up the masses though religion. The Jews do the same - and the fundamentalist Christian leadership is also secular - also: those that push hard core liberal values - are usually lofty quiet conservatives who love to see the masses duped and emotional. EMOTIONAL control of the people has always been used to wage war and over power other gangs - nothing has changed.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

Well, given that Iran has often said that Israel should be wiped from the earth

1) The translation is debatable.

2) At no time, was the method of Israel's vanishing mentioned, nor Iran's active participation.

3) Ahamdinejad has since clarified and expressed that he wished it to happen through political means.

4) Mccain's bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb-bomb Iran comment was just as bad of a comment.

and that the reasons they cite for developing nuclear power don't seem to truly fit their situation

Please elaborate what you mean by that.

what confidence have they earned for other countries to believe them when they say they aren't going to build nuclear weapons?

I'm not sure that we have put other countries up to that same level of scrutiny when they have acquired nuclear energy.

Particularly when they have massive centrifuge programs that are unnecessary for nuclear power but essential for nuclear weapons?

Iran has been open about the centrifuges, and they are necessary to enrich uranium for nuclear energy. Granted, they could be used to help enrich uranium for nuclear weapons as well. However, there is no evidence that is their intention, nor have they constructed anything that is used for nuclear weapons, but not nuclear fuel.

Iran having nuclear weapons would make it the most powerful state in the Arab World, which has long been one of their goals.

The same could be said for any Arab country that develops nuclear weapons. Does that mean we should deprive all Arab nations of nuclear energy?

You don't need to convince me that Iran having nuclear weapons is bad. I get that. Although, I do believe that the other nations having nuclear weapons is not a good thing either. However, Iran has done nothing to relinquish its right to build nuclear energy, and it can be done in a way where inspectors constantly monitor it to ensure that weapons are not being produced.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

Not to mention that Islam lends itself to similar tactics as seen used by the Japanese. Suicide attacks and what-not.

That is a good point. But again, we are talking about energy, and not weapons.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

Because they are in violation.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sectio...;m=5&y=2006

The link you gave me does not show that they are in violation.

It shows that they objected to snap inspections which were voluntary to begin with.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

Suicide or Homicide are the same - one is self murder - and the other is the murder of another. Westerners get gleeful when they mention "suicide attacks" - It is a subject that some how gives justification to the idea that these people are so nuts they will kill themselves in order to kill us...there is a great fear of this kind of blind commitment - because we are commited to nothing...and a suicider reminds us that we stand for nothing and are not willing to go the distance for something we believe in because we believe in nothing. Sucide fighter are an embarrassment to the selfish western secular spirit.

It's an interesting argument.

I think one of the reason that suicidal warriors have such a bad rap, is because lately - most of them have targeted civilians.

Reflecting back now, I think many people see a sense of honour in the Japanese kamikazes.

M.Dancer · January 16, 2009

The link you gave me does not show that they are in violation.
It shows that they objected to snap inspections which were voluntary to begin with.

Read again

The protocol allows unfettered and unannounced IAEA inspections to ensure overall compliance with the NPT.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

Yes, it is true that NOW Iran has admitted to breaching the NPT and may be acting honestly, but its past actions should give concerns about just how compliant they are. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Hmm, I can't get your link to work or find admission of Iran, or anything official saying that they were in breach.

However, for the sake of argument - let's say that you are right.

Given the circumstances, you can understand why Iran would not be completely forward. Israel took out similar reactors in Iraq, and nobody did anything about it. More recently, Israel asked the US for permission to make a strike on Iran's facilities. This of course, is the country that built weapons secretly, and continues to lie to the world about their existence - but proceeds to lecture other countries on building nuclear energy.

Probably because of the substantial oil deposits that Iran has.

So, you believe that because Iran has a lot of oil, then they shouldn't need nuclear energy, and developing it, is just a cover for developing nuclear weapons? Don't you think that even if they have oil, they might want other sources of energy, or might want to save their oil to sell to other countries?

The problem is, the way Iran is going about its nuclear program (enriching its own uranium, which means that some material could be used for military as well as civilian purposes) coupled with past NPT violations and statements about 'wiping Israel off the map' should make people cautious.

I see. So you think that another nation should do the enrichment, so that Iran has the same fuel, but does not have the technology or capacity to divert it to weapons? Well, the problem with that, is that Iran does not have control of its own resources then. Particularly at a time when the nations of the world are all threatening sanctions against them - does it make sense to put the country's energy in the hands of someone who could just decide to strip it from you on a whim? Would Canada want France to give us our enriched uranium or would we want to have that control ourselves?

The NPT actually suggests that the nuclear countries are supposed to help the non-nuclear countries acquire energy, in exchange for not developing weapons. In the case of Iran, they have not only not helped, but they have actually done everything possible to deny them. So, in fact, I would say that the nuclear nations are in breach.

If Iran were really and truly interested in nuclear power for civilian uses, it has a few options:
- Use uranium that has been enriched by other countries. I'm sure France or Russia would be pleased to sell them pre-enriched uranium)

- Use a reactor design (such as CANDU) which does not require enriched uranium

These are reasonable compromises - as long as those nations do not look to exploit the situation and as long as Iran has full control over its nuclear energy, such that no nation can arbitrarily take it away.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

Just because the average westerner isn't willing to engage in suicide attacks does not mean that 'we believe in nothing' or that we are 'selfish'.
Indeed, remember, many such suicide attacks are religiously motivated, with the promise of '72 virgins' in the afterlife. To me, that sounds a bit selfish.

Commitment is not always bad... commitment to a screwed up ideal based on some bizarre fantasy that allows you to be manipulated pretty much always is bad.

I think the other thing to remember is that suicide attacks are also motivated by desperation, and a feeling of having no hope.

We, in the Western world, as much as things aren't perfect, have much to hope for and live for.

Many Palestinians do not.

M.Dancer · January 16, 2009

Hmm, I can't get your link to work or find admission of Iran, or anything official saying that they were in breach.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/ir...tviolations.pdf

M.Dancer · January 16, 2009

Israel took out similar reactors in Iraq, and nobody did anything about it.

That's not quite true. There were roundly praised/condemned.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

Read again

It still doesn't say that they are in violation.

I guess I assumed that if they were in violation, then the IAEA would come out and make a statement to that effect.

Your quote shows that they aren't willing to agree to the voluntary snap inspections to demonstrate that they are in compliance.

For instance, if I get pulled over for a suspected DUI, and I refuse the breathalyzer, that does not mean that I am a drunk driver, it means that I am not cooperating to demonstrate that I am not a drunk driver.

I know it seems picky, but it is an important distinction.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/ir...tviolations.pdf

Alright, now I'm convinced. Thanks.

KeyStone · January 16, 2009

That's not quite true. There were roundly praised/condemned.

Praised/Condemned isn't really doing something, it's saying something.

I'm talking about sanctions/ending trade agreements/ stopping the sale of weapons/military retribution - something.

M.Dancer · January 16, 2009

Praised/Condemned isn't really doing something, it's saying something.
I'm talking about sanctions/ending trade agreements/ stopping the sale of weapons/military retribution - something.

What problem do you have with Israel defending itself? Iran attacked the reactor they year before....are you upset no one did anything about that either?