PDA

View Full Version : Iran and nuclear power



vic user
August 12th, 2005, 03:47 AM
Maybe I am just naive, but I don't understand what all the hoopla is about with Iran trying to provide electricity through nuclear power.

They signed all the treaties, and are complying just like many other nuclear capable nations.

I find it very hypocritical of nulcear nations getting upset at Iran.

Why not lead by example and get rid of their own nuclear facilities, if they are so worried about "terrorists" getting nuclear material?

To me it just seems like bullying.

To be honest, I would be far more worried about Pakistan, India, and former soviet bloc nations, than Iran, if my concern was nuclear material going "missing"

chris

carlsson
August 12th, 2005, 06:10 AM
I thought it was confirmed that both Pakistan and India already have nuclear weapons, or at least can manufacture them as required? The real worry should be countries which are politically instable, so any new leader seizing the power would take advantage of using any weapons already in store. I don't know how many countries have used nuclear weapons in war, apart from the obvious first two bombings.

vic user
August 12th, 2005, 06:37 AM
For me it comes down to the fact that Iran has stated that they are not interested in developing nuclear weapons, and just want to produce electricity.

maybe i am naive, but i don't see why we should not take them on their word.

that's why we have IAEA inspectors in the first place isn't it?

and i also think political stability is an illusion for all nations.

it wouldn't take much, as far as i am concerned, to get people to fall back into barbarism.

and i also believe that the only way to ensure that nukes are not used, is to get rid of them all.

i don't care how much security the USA have, i still don't trust them.

chris

Terry Yager
August 12th, 2005, 07:56 AM
Mebbe it's because Iran's current regime has proven untrustworthy in the past...

The US is a nation of sheep, who will line up behind any charismatic leader.
David Koresh's people stayed with him to the bitter end. Jim Jones' followers all drank the Kool-Aid. Another Hitler could easily sieze control of our nuclear arsenal and the few of us who know better would be powerless to stop it.

BTW, the USA is the only nation that has ever fired nukes in anger at another country's (civillian) population.

--T

Erik
August 12th, 2005, 09:14 AM
The US is a nation of sheep, who will line up behind any charismatic leader.

I hope that's not as true as it seems sometimes.

You've probably all heard about the boiling water and the frog. If you drop a frog into boiling water it will thrash about and try to jump out until it dies. A frog placed in cool water that is gradually heated to boiling, however, will never notice and will die quietly.

Most in the US are like the latter frog. A nation that went to war over a 1.5% tea tax (amongst other things) now suffers through 40%+ nominal tax rates and a loss of freedoms that would terrify our founding fathers.

Eventually we will either realize our fate and start thrashing around or we will die as a nation.

Nukes or no nukes. . . ;)

E

Terry Yager
August 12th, 2005, 01:10 PM
I kinda have mixed feelings when it comes to nukes. Nuclear power is at once the greatest gift to mankind, and the worst curse.

--T

mbbrutman
August 13th, 2005, 12:01 PM
US foreign policy is not as enlightened as it could be.

Iran might be ruled by hard line clerics, but a vast portion of the population is young and resents the leadership. And so here we are, antagonizing them by labelling them as part of the 'Axis of Evil.' Bush is too stupid to come up with his own phrases so he borrows the past, and does a poor job.

Then we invade Iraq. In a nation where we have 140,000 US troops a group of armed men 'deposed' the mayor of Baghdad. Yep, it happened this past week. I'd say if you were going to do the job right 140,000 wasn't enough, but that's not a very popular opinion. It's easier to do the job wrong and blame it on the insurgents, while claiming freedom is on the march.

So look at it from Iran's point of view. We're in their back yard, mired in crap, but yet still very close. We're in Afghanistan too. We own the Saudis. (Or do they own us?) We are heavily involved in Israel. Iran sees itself as a counterweight to US influence.

Instead of antagonizing people we should learn to work with them. The hostage takings were over 25 years ago. We supplied Iraq with the weapons used to kill Iranians in the war - don't you think they are a little POed about that? Nevermind the meddling in their country in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

All of that being said, I don't want Iran to have nukes either. It's a small jump from producing electricity for peaceful means to building bombs. We couldn't keep North Korea from building missles and bombs, and they are dirt poor. Iran's civil society is much more modern than North Korea, and a bomb is easily within their grasp. And invading Iran would make Iraq seem like running a lemonade stand with some unruly girl scouts. Iraq was not prepared for a major conflict - their army was all show to please the deranged dictator. The Iranian leadership has a much better grip on reality.

It's time to stop being so confrontational and meddling in other people's affairs. I think that after WWII the US sowed some very poisonous seeds in the world. Our foreign policy in South America and the Middle East has caused much of the current problems today.

CP/M User
August 14th, 2005, 01:20 AM
"mbbrutman" wrote:

> We couldn't keep North Korea from building missles and bombs, and
> they are dirt poor. Iran's civil society is much more modern than North
> Korea, and a bomb is easily within their grasp.

How does this go? Nuclear bombs are designed to take out a city.

But I was told of another bomb which is designed to take out a state? Somebody told me that the North Koreans have built this one, no-one seems to be troubling them now are they, how does this game go? Biggest bomb is the winner?

CP/M User.

mbbrutman
August 14th, 2005, 06:29 AM
I don't fully understand the question ...

My point was that we couldn't keep North Korea from developing nuclear bombs and missle systems that can reach Japan. Iran has far more resources. How do we stop them?

Unknown_K
August 17th, 2005, 12:59 AM
The US is worried about Iran making nukes (and they WILL make nukes for no other reason then Isriel has quite a few and they need a deturrent) because if they had nukes the US could not controll the middle east anymore.

As far as the WW2 bombing of Japan civilians with nukes, we killed more civilians bombing cities with military industry (fair game at the time with the methods available) with conventional weapons. I don't see how people can compare WW2 and its weapons to todays weapons and precision munitions. Exactly what is so much worse about dying with radiation sickness a few months after a nuke dropped then dying of 3rd degree burns a few months after getting firebombed? Atleast if you are directly under the bomb you never knew what hit you, compared with baking to death in a bunker during a conventional raid (if you were not lucky enough to suffocate first).

So many countries have nukes anymore that it would be real hard to find a use for any of them without getting some shot back at you in return.

The whole thing boils down to a extremely militarized country that projects force all over the globe and has invaded multiple countries as it see fit complaining about small countries trying to get the same weapons (on a much smaller scale) so the larger country cant bitch slap them around on a whim. The rules are onesided and favor the status quo of the powerfull nations.

CP/M User
August 18th, 2005, 02:12 PM
"Unknown_K" wrote:

> The US is worried about Iran making nukes (and they WILL make nukes
> for no other reason then Isriel has quite a few and they need a
> deturrent) because if they had nukes the US could not controll the
> middle east anymore.

> As far as the WW2 bombing of Japan civilians with nukes, we killed
> more civilians bombing cities with military industry (fair game at the
> time with the methods available) with conventional weapons. I don't see
> how people can compare WW2 and its weapons to todays weapons and
> precision munitions. Exactly what is so much worse about dying with
> radiation sickness a few months after a nuke dropped then dying of 3rd
> degree burns a few months after getting firebombed? Atleast if you are
> directly under the bomb you never knew what hit you, compared with
> baking to death in a bunker during a conventional raid (if you were not
> lucky enough to suffocate first).

> So many countries have nukes anymore that it would be real hard to
> find a use for any of them without getting some shot back at you in
> return.

> The whole thing boils down to a extremely militarized country that
> projects force all over the globe and has invaded multiple countries as it
> see fit complaining about small countries trying to get the same
> weapons (on a much smaller scale) so the larger country cant bitch slap
> them around on a whim. The rules are onesided and favor the status
> quo of the powerfull nations.

Perhaps this is mean't to be the creation of the next great extinction. Doing the planet a favor & just Nuking all of ourselves out of existance. Part of this problem seems to be that we've made such a huge impact in such a short period of time.

CP/M User.

Unknown_K
August 18th, 2005, 02:33 PM
No, humans won't nuke each other out of existance. We are getting so advanced that only .0001% of humankind knows how to grow food, sanitize the water, and clean the air while the other 99.9998% do important things like design webpages. Sooner or later some nature made catastrophy will happen and the dominoes will fall.

mbbrutman
August 18th, 2005, 06:34 PM
Another thing to keep in mind about the US using nuclear weapons against Japan. It is a dubious honor to be the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war, but people should consider the circumstances too.

The Japanese were not about to surrender, and a land invasion would have been extremely bloody for both sides. One can argue if the shock value of the bomb is what ended the war, and if it was less bloody than an invasion or not. However, in terms of American lives, it certainly was less bloody. If the Japanese did not want to face the consequences of fighting a bloody war, perhaps they should not have engaged in one?

Unknown_K
August 18th, 2005, 07:05 PM
If the Japanese did not want to face the consequences of fighting a bloody war, perhaps they should not have engaged in one?

That all depends on the government in charge of the country. What do you think Bush would have done if all the oil producing countries did an oil embargo when he invaded Afghanistan?

The US stopped selling Japan scrap metal and oil when they desperatly needed both while fighting China for most of a decade. They were left with the option of leaving China (Asians are not to keen in losing face, another reason Japan was not willing to surrender even when most of their cities were in ruin), or taking what oilfields were close by (which meant war with european nations and most likely the US anyway).

Terry Yager
August 18th, 2005, 09:12 PM
I've heard the same argument used about the Native Americans (or the Palastinians, or <insert your favorite victims of genocidal warfare>) -- they fought a war and lost, so they should just put up or shut up.

--T

CP/M User
August 18th, 2005, 11:32 PM
"Unknown_K" wrote:

> No, humans won't nuke each other out of existance.

Yeah, your right, I was just wanted to see who'd byte! ;-)

> We are getting so advanced that only .0001% of humankind knows how
> to grow food, sanitize the water, and clean the air while the other
> 99.9998% do important things like design webpages. Sooner or later
> some nature made catastrophy will happen and the dominoes will fall.

What about the other .0001?! There's no such thing as 99.9999% Humans! ;-)

CP/M User.

mbbrutman
August 19th, 2005, 04:16 PM
The intent of my post wasn't to say don't fight when you are right, you might get beaten and not like the results. I was merely saying that war is a bloody thing, and one should be prepared.

Yes, the US embargoed oil. We seem to have forgotten to mention that the Chinese and the Koreans were not particularly happen with Imperial Japan for many reasons too. There's no point going down this road because it ends with cavemen clubbing each other on the head.

And of course, a lot of this depends on the leaders at the time. What would the 1930s and 40s have been like without a militaristic Germany and Japan? What impact are we having with our current adventures in Afghanistan and the Middle East? Are people going to look back at the US in 50 years and ask what drug we were under the influence of?