Iran resumes nuclear activities

[tkingdoll]

I can understand not wanting western nations to have them, but what I don't understand is putting any less pressure on Iran not to develope them because you don't like that western countries already have them. Can you explain that to me?

I'm sort of trying to give the argument from Iran's point of view, which is difficult because I don't like their attitude one little bit.

Personally, I absolutely agree that as much pressure as possible should be put on Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, because All Nuclear Weapons Are BadTM and only harm can come of it.

[devil's advocate]

However, if I was Iran, and the West told me I couldn't have something that they have, and if one of the reasons that the West has the authority to tell me that is precisely because they already have nuclear capabilities, I would tell them to take a running jump.

The USA and UK can bomb whoever they like if they do not agree with the attitude of the leaders of that country, but Iran cannot. There is some hypocrisy there. We are supposed to live in an enlighted democracy, but our actions often do not support of advancement of the cause of human rights any more than Iran's. It just seems like they are more upfront about their motives.

[/devil's advocate]

I appreciate it's not as simple as that, but I simply don't like the "we have this but you can't because we don't trust you nya nya nya" attitude.

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Why not, if other countries have them?

Originally posted by Ed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

But, Ed, that's just dead jews; since when is that of any concern in international relations? If they claimed they want to kill Muslims or Christians, you might have a case against them getting nukes... surely the elimination of israel, "the greatest threat to world peace" (just ask the Europeans), would be a good thing?

I appreciate it's not as simple as that, but I simply don't like the "we have this but you can't because we don't trust you nya nya nya" attitude

I am reminded of a story told about one of my professors. On jury duty, he was asked by the prosecutor if he was ever treated "unjustly or unfairly" by the police. He replied, "unjustly, yes; unfairly, no!". Asked to explain, it turns out that he was in a demonstration against the Vietnam war and got hit on the head by a cop's billy club. That, he explained, was unjust, because he didn't do anything to deserve it. But it wasn't unfair, because they didn't single him out--the cops were beating everybody up.

Same here. Perhaps treating Iran this way is unfair, in the same sense that it is unfair that we let law-abiding citizens have guns but not criminals: we are treating the USA better than Iran and law-abiders better than criminals. But it isn't unjust, since we have excellent reasons to do so. For starters, the attempted prevention of a second holocaust, which is Iran's stated goal.

Yes, I clearly see the danger. My point is, no-one should have nuclear weapons in that case.

Why? By the same logic, the police or hunters should not be allowed guns if paranoid schizophrenics are denied them. Surely there is no moral requirement that those who are law-abiding and (relatively) good should be equally armed as those who are dangerous, violent criminals.

As for the fact that Iran sees this as "hypocritical" and sees the US as the "real danger", etc., so what? Ask any criminal and he'll tell you that the cops are "just as violent" as he is and the "real danger" is not him raping / looting / killing / evading taxes / committing mail fraud / whatever, but the "out of control government" which is the "real evil". It's the same sort of rationalizing used in "The Godfather"--by the murderous mobsters.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Iran resumes nuclear activities

Caption reads:Technition shouts "Abdul come quickly. My organ, prized of Allah, is caught.

 

[tkingdoll]

Same here. Perhaps treating Iran this way is unfair, in the same sense that it is unfair that we let law-abiding citizens have guns but not criminals: we are treating the USA better than Iran and law-abiders better than criminals. But it isn't unjust, since we have excellent reasons to do so. For starters, the attempted prevention of a second holocaust, which is Iran's stated goal.

Yes, we should do everything we can to stop Iran having nuclear weapons. Absolutely. But if Iran asked the same of us, would we take any notice? I doubt it. We're alright, Jack, cause we're so damn civilised in the West. And their developing them does not give us the right to go and bomb the hell out of them to protect their neighbours. It just annoys me how superior we are with our weapons of mass destruction hidden behind our backs.

For the record, I'm a Jew, I care about Israel.

 

[Skeptic]

Yes, we should do everything we can to stop Iran having nuclear weapons. Absolutely. But if Iran asked the same of us, would we take any notice? I doubt it. We're alright, Jack, cause we're so damn civilised in the West.

Well, we certainly are. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which at least arguably justified, how many times did the west use nuclear weapons? It didn't.

But having it and being willing to use it in dire cases did quite a bit to stop the USSR from simply rolling over western Europe and subjugating another 400,000,000 or so to a Communist dictatorship.

The possession of nuclear weapons by the west was--and still is--one of the most important things for world peace. It was the only thing that prevented the USSR from taking over Europe, and, today, if anything will stop Islamic terrorist from setting off a nuclear weapon in the west, it is only the knowledge that Mecca would be made into a glass crater afterwards.

So, three cheers for the bomb, as far as I'm concerned.

For the record, I'm a Jew, I care about Israel.

From your posts, it's quite clear that you are by no means for Iran having nukes, only against the west having them, which is, as they say, a horse of a different color. But:

a). I think you're wrong about the west having nukes being bad (see above) and

b). in any case, if you wish to argue for western disarmament, "we would hypocritically refuse if Iran demanded it" is just about as bad an argument as you can use--because there is nothing hypocritical in a law-abiding citizen denying the requests of a criminal thug. It would, if anything, be hypocritical for Iran to demand such a thing, for the same reason it would be hypocritical for a would-be rapist to demand his victim give up her gun.

 

[geni]

Israel doesn't have anywhere near the capability to do it*, that is certain.

Israel has balistic missiles while it proably isn't enough to totaly stop Iran's program forever it would by time.

 

[Rob Lister]

Israel has balistic missiles while it proably isn't enough to totaly stop Iran's program forever it would by time.

Israel very likely has dozens upon dozens (possibly even a gross) of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that could stop Iran cold if worse came to worst. That may not be the official tally but you can bet it is the real one.

 

[geni]

Israel very likely has dozens upon dozens (possibly even a gross) of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that could stop Iran cold if worse came to worst. That may not be the official tally but you can bet it is the real one.

Israel has a few hundread nukes however assuming that they are reasonabley acuret then they shouldn't need a nuclear payload for this task. If they aren't then perhaps they should spend some of their militery aid on cruise misiles

 

[Rob Lister]

Ireal has a few hundread nukes however assuming that they are reasonabley acuret then they shouldn't need a nuclear payload for this task. If they aren't then perhaps they should spend some of their militery aid on cruise misiles

I suspect they spend an fair portion on just that. I also suspect that was was given for.

begin derail
MY GOD GENI! You almost went an entire paragraph without spelling a single word correctly. I've seen you on chat where you spell perfectly. What an oddity you are!
/derail

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Is Iran actually doing anything prohibited by the NPT?

As I understand it, Iran is quite at liberty to enrich yellowcake to make reactor-grade uranium (which is nothing like the same stuff as weapons-grade uranium and is made with different equipment), and to build nuclear reactors, and it's been cooperating with the IAEC inspectors.

Is there any reason to believe they are building nuclear weapons other than "Durnit, it's the kind of thing they'd do!"?

 

[geni]

Is Iran actually doing anything prohibited by the NPT?

As I understand it, Iran is quite at liberty to enrich yellowcake to make reactor-grade uranium (which is nothing like the same stuff as weapons-grade uranium and is made with different equipment), and to build nuclear reactors, and it's been cooperating with the IAEC inspectors.

Is there any reason to believe they are building nuclear weapons other than "Durnit, it's the kind of thing they'd do!"?

A number apart from anthing they have a program aimed at obtaining plutonium

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1730045,00.html

 

[Skeptic]

Is there any reason to believe they are building nuclear weapons other than "Durnit, it's the kind of thing they'd do!"?

You mean, except for their leaders' consistent insistence that they will destroy the infidel jews with nuclear fire?

 

[Mycroft]

Is Iran actually doing anything prohibited by the NPT?

As I understand it, Iran is quite at liberty to enrich yellowcake to make reactor-grade uranium (which is nothing like the same stuff as weapons-grade uranium and is made with different equipment), and to build nuclear reactors, and it's been cooperating with the IAEC inspectors.

Is there any reason to believe they are building nuclear weapons other than "Durnit, it's the kind of thing they'd do!"?

I seem to recall reading about an Iranian gas enrichment process which is unnecessary for fuel but vital for making bombs.

 

[Manny]

And speaking of gas, Iran flares (sets on fire at the top of a well rather than collecting) 270 bcf of natural gas every year. Places that flare that quantity of gas just don't need nuclear for electricity.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

And speaking of gas, Iran flares (sets on fire at the top of a well rather than collecting) 270 bcf of natural gas every year. Places that flare that quantity of gas just don't need nuclear for electricity.

Do you have similar figures for wasted energy for the countries that do have nuclear power?

A radio report I heard suggested that there were relatively regular power outages (c1 hour per month). Whether this was due to a shortage of power or problems with delivery systems etc was not made clear.

 

[Manny]

That would be something of an unfair statistic (to Iran), since many countries which have nuclear power don't have any appreciable gas at all. (France and Japan flare zero percent of their gas, for example, but it's zero percent of almost zero production). Worldwide, 2% of gas is flared and the outliers on the upside tend to be countries with low gas production relative to oil, remote fields and relatively low internal needs. Nigeria is the largest flarer in the world, followed by Iran, Indonesia and Angola. Among nuclear countries which are also major gas producers? US 1/2%, Canada, 1%, Russia, 0%, UK 1.5%, numbers like that. Iran is at 7%.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I seem to recall reading about an Iranian gas enrichment process which is unnecessary for fuel but vital for making bombs.

I've read a few different people claiming that there was/is hard evidence they were unambiguously up to no good. I've also read other people claiming that Iran is currently cooperating completely with IAEA officials, doing nothing forbidden by the NNPT and generally going by the book this time.

Is there an IAEA official position statement or anything floating around? At the moment it looks to me that both pro-war kooks and anti-war kooks are saying all sorts of contradictory things about what is going on, and what I'd really like is word from the horse's mouth about whether Iran is or isn't proveably breaking (or tooling up to break) the NNPT.

If that bunch of nuts are actually likely to get their hands on nuclear weapons, they have to to be stopped. Without the USA unilaterally starting another bloodbath, of course. That goes without saying. But I do harbour some concerns that this is the WMD lie coming back for seconds.

 

[Ed]

If that bunch of nuts are actually likely to get their hands on nuclear weapons, they have to to be stopped.

How? The UN?




Without the USA unilaterally starting another bloodbath, of course.

Obligatory dig at the US noted.

 

[Orwell]

Obligatory dig at the US noted.

Why are you noting "obligatory digs" at the US, Ed? Are you compiling a list of "enemies of the US" or something?

 

[Rob Lister]

Why are you noting "obligatory digs" at the US, Ed? Are you compiling a list of "enemies of the US" or something?

that's my job. You're on the list but, being as you are canadian, you're way, way down there.