Why should Iran not have nuclear power?

[Beet]

Why does the US oppose Iran having nuclear power - or for that matter, nuclear weapons? Belief that they will pass it on to Hezbollah or other Shiite terror groups? I'm skeptical. Such a thing would obviously be traced back to Iran and result in the obliteration of Iran. What the US should address is why Iran feels the need to have such things: insecurity of US attack. The best way to do that is pull out of Iraq as soon as possible and then pull out of Afghanistan.

[Bo]

It should have nuclear power, not weapons. If they allow UN inspectors into all their nuclear facilities to make sure that wouldn't be using their nuclear power for anything other than peaceful purposes, then they would have no problem using nuclear power. BTW, I honestly don't think Pakistan and North Korea deserve nukes any more than Iran does, but they have already built nukes.

[dead0man]

Why does the US oppose Iran having nuclear power - or for that matter, nuclear weapons? Belief that they will pass it on to Hezbollah or other Shiite terror groups? I'm skeptical. Such a thing would obviously be traced back to Iran and result in the obliteration of Iran.

Which intelligence agency are you going to trust to tell you where a nuclear bomb came from post blast?  Mossad, CIA?  Would you trust them if they had intel pre-blast?

[Lief 🗽]

The United States' policy towards the Iranian nuclear program is completely hypocritical; not only do some of our staunchest allies (Israel, Pakistan, and India) have nuclear weapon stockpiles in defiance of the NNPT, but we have probably violated the NNPT as well through the NATO nuclear weapon sharing program. Iran, as a signatory to the NNPT, should enjoy the right to peacefully use nuclear technology (and the USA, also a signatory, should respect that right). That we are punishing Iran (which is working within the treaty's guidelines and is a signatory) while defending Israel, Pakistan and India (who have not signed the treaty and have nuclear weapon stockpiles in defiance of it) is the height of hypocrisy. Iranian politicians and some members of the Non-Aligned Movement have attacked the American policy as "nuclear apartheid" and I think that it's a valid attack.

[Franzl]

I honestly don't care if it's hypocritical. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, period.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

[k-onmmunist]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

So not only are you a social authoritarian, you're a neo-con too. Nice.

[GMantis]

I honestly don't care if it's hypocritical. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, period.

But you're alright with Israel having them?

[Franzl]

I honestly don't care if it's hypocritical. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, period.

But you're alright with Israel having them?

Personally, yes. I don't claim that my position is fair.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

[Silent Hunter]

I'm in favour of nuclear disarmament. I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

[Beet]

Why does the US oppose Iran having nuclear power - or for that matter, nuclear weapons? Belief that they will pass it on to Hezbollah or other Shiite terror groups? I'm skeptical. Such a thing would obviously be traced back to Iran and result in the obliteration of Iran.

Which intelligence agency are you going to trust to tell you where a nuclear bomb came from post blast?  Mossad, CIA?  Would you trust them if they had intel pre-blast?

If Israel was nuked and the CIA said it was Hezbollah then people would believe it.

[k-onmmunist]

I'm in favour of nuclear disarmament. I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons.

Neither do I, and Britain should set a precedent by disarming all ours.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Iran having nuclear weapon is not a threat per se, because they are never going to use it. We can say a lot about Khamenei and other ayatollahs, but they are not suicidal. Iran want to have a weapon mainly to have U.S. get the f**k out. Not suprising, considering how much evil U.S. did for this country, even being responsible for Aytollahs rise to power. There is pretty broad consensus among both regime side and opposition that Iran should have weapons.

The only problem would be probably nuclear arm race in the region, as Arab state would get crazy with such armed Tehran. Not suprising again, since Americans were idiotic enough to destroy the bulwark against Iranian influence, Saddam's Iraq used to be.

I would be MUCH MORE CONCERNED about Pakistan, which already have nuclear weapon and is unstable as all hell. But, again, who effectively destroyed Non-Prolifeation? So stop complaining and dreaming, my American friends.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

[Franzl]

I'm very sceptical of any type of international "law".

From my perspective, enough countries have nuclear weapons to ensure that no country will run wild with them.

Increasing the number of countries that have them, especially a country like Iran....is simply asking for trouble. I'm not personally interested in "equal rights".

Oh, and Antonio: You're becoming quite a Neocon

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

Oh, and Antonio: You're becoming quite a Neocon

Yeah, for French standards, I'm definitely one.
On the traditional spectrum, I tend to be a kind of centrist on international issues (on some other aspects, like relations with China&co, I'm however quite far to the left). If I were a radical anti-neocon such as BRTD, Gmantis or the average Frenchie, I'd never have registered on a merikun imperialist forum !

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Increasing the number of countries that have them, especially a country like Iran....is simply asking for trouble. I'm not personally interested in "equal rights".

I guess you really overestimate Iran "threat". I'd much more worried about Pakistan, which already have nuclear weapon, or country like Saudi Arabia getting it as well.