Why are republicans concerned about a nuclear Iran?

[Mr. Illini]

I'm concerned with any country obtaining a nuclear bomb that doesn't already have one, but specifically a country like Iran.

Answer OP: Nuclear Iran is more or less dangerous than nuclear Pakistan at this point?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Twelvers need chaos to bring back the Mahdi. What else is a nuke good for?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I personally think that Iran's leaders would be dumb to attack Israel with its nuclear weapon.  And since the US will never allow Israel to get attacked by Iran, such a scenario results in their cities being flattened.  So saying Iran will do that is simply fearmongering.

     This is something that I have been thinking about. The Ayatollahs have been in power for 36 years now. You don't rule that long possessing the sort of suicidal stupidity needed to try to bomb Israel. I really doubt that Iran would actually nuke anyone.

[The Free North]

I personally think that Iran's leaders would be dumb to attack Israel with its nuclear weapon.  And since the US will never allow Israel to get attacked by Iran, such a scenario results in their cities being flattened.  So saying Iran will do that is simply fearmongering.

     This is something that I have been thinking about. The Ayatollahs have been in power for 36 years now. You don't rule that long possessing the sort of suicidal stupidity needed to try to bomb Israel. I really doubt that Iran would actually nuke anyone.

Furthermore the regime is under increasing pressure domestically and when you consider the new threats Shia face in the rise of Sunni extremism, the last thing Iran needs right now is to be starting nuclear wars. While this type of illogical diplomacy could maybe be expected from an entirely rouge state like North Korea, but even in that case, the Kim family has a vested interest in self-preservation as well.

[jaichind]

I see nothing wrong with Iran getting a nuclear bomb.  I feel might lead to a more stable geopolitical environment.  Iran and Israel will then be in a MAD situation and then real negotiations of give and take can begin to figure out some ground rules on how these two countries can co-exist. 

[IceSpear]

I see nothing wrong with Iran getting a nuclear bomb.  I feel might lead to a more stable geopolitical environment.  Iran and Israel will then be in a MAD situation and then real negotiations of give and take can begin to figure out some ground rules on how these two countries can co-exist. 

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong in this scenario?

[Simfan34]

Nuclear power has shown to be a dangerous and unpredictable source of energy--see Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.

No.

[politicus]

Nuclear power has shown to be a dangerous and unpredictable source of energy--see Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.

No.

One of those times where a single word answer is no good.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm concerned with any country obtaining a nuclear bomb that doesn't already have one, but specifically a country like Iran.

Answer OP: Nuclear Iran is more or less dangerous than nuclear Pakistan at this point?

"Less dangerous than nuclear Pakistan" is hardly a reassuring phrase.

[The Free North]

I am not.

By the way: Only Republicans are concerned about it? Really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvhBoF_pCHo

Republicans don't have a monopoly on Iran hysteria obviously, but they did just invite a certain Middle Eastern PM to come speak to the congress...

[King]

Nuclear power has shown to be a dangerous and unpredictable source of energy--see Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.

No.

One of those times where a single word answer is no good.

Nobody died at Three Mile Island. Security measures even in 1970s standard worked. It's like pointing to a BMW accident where everyone survived as proof that BMWs are unsafe.

Fossil fuels have significant direct mortality rates associated to them where as nuclear is 0. A lot of the fear of nuclear power comes from the misconception that it has anything to do with a nuclear bomb. Nuclear power plant reactors and nuclear bombs are like comparing apples with apple-flavored Jolly Ranchers.  Blowing up a nuclear power plant cannot cause a mushroom cloud.

Even if we want to go into indirect deaths (estimations of how many people will die of cancer from radiation leaked at Fukishama), it still pales in comparison to the indirect deaths in the mining of precious metals in Africa that compose solar panels.  Or environmental displacement by hydroelectric dam construction.

The only energy that is truly environmentally safe is wind and it's wholly inadequate.  In all other scenarios, you are playing a game of risk and the sheer amount of energy nuclear can produce means per accident it's a good deal as a opposed to per accident at an oil rig, a dam, a platinum mine, a coal mine, or a wind turbine manufacturing plant.

In other words, "No."

[Simfan34]

It should also be noted that even the cataclysmic Chernobyl, according to the UN report in 2006 or so, caused only something like 50 deaths. Unpleasant, yes, but far fewer than the number of people who surely die due to coal induced lung cancer each year. Perhaps each month.

Indeed, they found that the that what was the great health threat to those living in the affected region were the psychological effects caused by the reaction to the accident; or in other words, hysteria.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nuclear power has shown to be a dangerous and unpredictable source of energy--see Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.

No.

One of those times where a single word answer is no good.

Nobody died at Three Mile Island. Security measures even in 1970s standard worked. It's like pointing to a BMW accident where everyone survived as proof that BMWs are unsafe.

Fossil fuels have significant direct mortality rates associated to them where as nuclear is 0. A lot of the fear of nuclear power comes from the misconception that it has anything to do with a nuclear bomb. Nuclear power plant reactors and nuclear bombs are like comparing apples with apple-flavored Jolly Ranchers.  Blowing up a nuclear power plant cannot cause a mushroom cloud.

Even if we want to go into indirect deaths (estimations of how many people will die of cancer from radiation leaked at Fukishama), it still pales in comparison to the indirect deaths in the mining of precious metals in Africa that compose solar panels.  Or environmental displacement by hydroelectric dam construction.

The only energy that is truly environmentally safe is wind and it's wholly inadequate.  In all other scenarios, you are playing a game of risk and the sheer amount of energy nuclear can produce means per accident it's a good deal as a opposed to per accident at an oil rig, a dam, a platinum mine, a coal mine, or a wind turbine manufacturing plant.

In other words, "No."

Even wind is not completely safe. It is a risk to wildlife and causes sonic disturbance that can have health effects.

[Simfan34]

Geothermal, perhaps, but there isn't anywhere near enough energy that we could generate from it in any case.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Nuclear power has shown to be a dangerous and unpredictable source of energy--see Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.

No.

One of those times where a single word answer is no good.

Nobody died at Three Mile Island. Security measures even in 1970s standard worked. It's like pointing to a BMW accident where everyone survived as proof that BMWs are unsafe.

Fossil fuels have significant direct mortality rates associated to them where as nuclear is 0. A lot of the fear of nuclear power comes from the misconception that it has anything to do with a nuclear bomb. Nuclear power plant reactors and nuclear bombs are like comparing apples with apple-flavored Jolly Ranchers.  Blowing up a nuclear power plant cannot cause a mushroom cloud.

Even if we want to go into indirect deaths (estimations of how many people will die of cancer from radiation leaked at Fukishama), it still pales in comparison to the indirect deaths in the mining of precious metals in Africa that compose solar panels.  Or environmental displacement by hydroelectric dam construction.

The only energy that is truly environmentally safe is wind and it's wholly inadequate.  In all other scenarios, you are playing a game of risk and the sheer amount of energy nuclear can produce means per accident it's a good deal as a opposed to per accident at an oil rig, a dam, a platinum mine, a coal mine, or a wind turbine manufacturing plant.

In other words, "No."

     This is something that can't be said enough. The dangers of mishandling nuclear power are great, yes. The fact that 2/3 disasters that the opponents of nuclear dredge up have resulted in little to no damage to people or the environment should suggest something, though; we are actually fairly adept at handling it.

     Even in the case of Chernobyl, the authorities involved were having success getting it under control until the reactor housing ruptured. The Soviet design had a less secure design (so they could access Plutonium fission products while it was still running) and the reactor was ancient and poorly-maintained. Had the same thing happened in any other country, it's very unlikely that anything serious would have come of it.

[politicus]

Nuclear power has shown to be a dangerous and unpredictable source of energy--see Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.

No.

One of those times where a single word answer is no good.

(lots  of general comment)

In other words, "No."

Can't you see why leaving out the stuff you just wrote and answering with a simple "no" is no good?

If people start arguing for their positions and just write yes and no we are back to kindergarden level of discussion.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They just want an excuse (however crappy an excuse it is) to build up the military-industrial complex and to warmonger.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wonder what they have to say about Saint Reagan's Iran Contra scandal?

[Torie]

Iran has more of an "unhealthy" interest in Israel than Pakistan does - for starters. Iran is more of a nutter state than Pakistan. Pakistan already has a nuke so it's spilt milk, and Iran doesn't. Pakistan got the nuke because India did. Iran is not seeking a nuke because Israel has a nuke. Iran is not concerned that Israel will attack it - absent Israel feeling it is about to be attacked, or facing nuclear blackmail just as soon as Iran accomplishes its goal. Iran and Israel do not have contiguous borders, that are in dispute as to their existing lines.

Most Americans are concerned about a nuclear Iran, including in particular, President Obama, who has assured us it will never happen. The debate, and the partisan divide, to the extent there is one, is over the best strategy to accomplish that goal, within what is reasonably possible, not about the importance to just saying "no" to Iran, and preventing it, from acquiring this singularly effective weapon of mass destruction.

Hope this helps. It is almost a tragedy that this has become a partisan issue. It sucks really.

[Blair]

Because AIPAC

[Suburbia]

If Iran has a nuclear weapon, all hell will break loose. It's not going to be a hysteria, as Fox and some feel, but it's not going to be a nice event to deal with, that's for sure.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The GOP needs an international boogey man.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm concerned with any country obtaining a nuclear bomb that doesn't already have one, but specifically a country like Iran.

Answer OP: Nuclear Iran is more or less dangerous than nuclear Pakistan at this point?

No.  However, Pakistan hasn't been quite as provocative at this point, and they don't have a non-Islamic enemy next door to the extent of Israel.

[SWE]

I'm concerned with any country obtaining a nuclear bomb that doesn't already have one, but specifically a country like Iran.

Answer OP: Nuclear Iran is more or less dangerous than nuclear Pakistan at this point?

No.  However, Pakistan hasn't been quite as provocative at this point, and they don't have a non-Islamic enemy next door to the extent of Israel.

Mr. Illini wasn't asking a yes or no question?

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm concerned with any country obtaining a nuclear bomb that doesn't already have one, but specifically a country like Iran.

Answer OP: Nuclear Iran is more or less dangerous than nuclear Pakistan at this point?

No.  However, Pakistan hasn't been quite as provocative at this point, and they don't have a non-Islamic enemy next door to the extent of Israel.

Mr. Illini wasn't asking a yes or no question?

Forgive me, I originally read it as an oddly (probably mistakenly) worded version of, "Is a nuclear Iran any worse than a nuclear worse than a nuclear Pakistan?", to which I answered it is not.  Re-reading it and answering his question (which I know wasn't addressed at me, but so what?) again, I'd rephrase my answer to be that both would be equally dangerous.