Iraq wants to become nuclear

[Skybird]

"Me too!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ctor-programme

A failed state. Huge instability. Terror daily. Plenty of uncontrolled ordnance and ammunitions. Fanatism. An impotent and corrupt security apparatus. Iran already being a problem (a fool who thinks Iran has anythign to do with Iraq's wish...). Does it sound like a good idea to let them go nuclear...?

Let's think one step further.

Saudi-Arabia anyone? Syria? Egypt? Turkey?

I see a bright shining future there.

[ETR3(SS)]

My 2 cents is this. Nobody else in the world needs to go nuclear. Now the reason being for that is that some countries (i.e. Iraq, Iran, North Korea) will more than likely abuse the power of nuclear power and use it to develop nuclear weapons if they haven't already. It's like giving a hand grenade to a toddler, someone is gonna die or be seriously hurt.

There's a certain amount of political and social responsibility that comes with nuclear power. Even here in the US, where the first operating reactor was built in the world, Americans are very much against the idea of nuclear power. To some of my countrymen the risks of going nuclear outweigh the rewards, even if it meant a clearer atmosphere.

Let's think one step further.

Saudi-Arabia anyone? Syria? Egypt? Turkey?

How many of those countries already have research reactors?
Apart from Syria all those countries have already applied to the IAEA with their plans for nuclear power stations havn't they.
So you are not thinking one step further, you have simply missed the steps taken long ago.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I see a bright shining future there.

Dont you mean glowing... as in glow in the dark?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

My 2 cents is this. Nobody else in the world needs to go nuclear. Now the reason being for that is that some countries (i.e. Iraq, Iran, North Korea) will more than likely abuse the power of nuclear power and use it to develop nuclear weapons if they haven't already. It's like giving a hand grenade to a toddler, someone is gonna die or be seriously hurt.

There's a certain amount of political and social responsibility that comes with nuclear power. Even here in the US, where the first operating reactor was built in the world, Americans are very much against the idea of nuclear power. To some of my countrymen the risks of going nuclear outweigh the rewards, even if it meant a clearer atmosphere.

Like hell nobody does. Instead of pontificating that only the US and US-approved states should have the bomb, why don't the follwing list of countries dismamtle their nuclear arsenals ? Usa, GB, France, China, Russia , India, Pakistan (oh yes a country much less reliable than Iran) and Israel (NK is a joke so I don't even mention it) ?
What's good for us is not good for the rest of you it seems.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, the US is not the world's dictator. Every country that wants and has the technological means and money to initiate a nuclear program civil and military should do so.
What will keep them in line is nuclear deterrance.
Hey it has kept in line the US and the Soviet Union for over half a century so it works. And I surely won't panick if Iran one day announces to the world that it posseses a nuclear arsenal.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by goldorak

What will keep them in line is nuclear deterrance.
Hey it has kept in line the US and the Soviet Union for over half a century so it works.

This is true, but the worry is that it may not be true for leaders who have flatly stated that one of their goals is to wipe out the nation of an opposing belief system. Both the United States and the Soviet Union knew that a nuclear war would likely lead to the destruction of everything that we know. The worry is that Iran may not care, or devoutly believe that their God will protect them from the results of such a conflict.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How many of those countries already have research reactors?
Apart from Syria all those countries have already applied to the IAEA with their plans for nuclear power stations havn't they.
So you are not thinking one step further, you have simply missed the steps taken long ago.

So you believe anything they tell you.

i wonder why so many analysts then warn of a regional nuclear arms race if Iran becomes nuclear, due to reacting to the groiwng threat Iran then would pose, and due tpo the desire of nations not to fall back in the race fro staretic influenc ein the region. And all the nations I listed have ambitions for regional dominance.

BTW, all of these nations since the mid-90s (short after the Iraq war 91) are expected to have secret plans for optionally play the nuclear card i case of one of them, mainly Iran, playing that card first. Iran - means the breaking of a dam.

and the IAEA - credibility is not what they are famous for, aren'T they. Just some days ago, when Iran rebuffed some demands over it's suplly with nuclear material in the bfuture, the IAEA told the press the offocial El-Baradei policy: that the talks went extremely smooth and Iran complied with the IAEA's suggestion. Today the media again report that Iran has agreed to demands of the IAEA and the Wetsern negotiation teams. It's just the fine print that reads: "after some very serious chnages vital for Iran'S interests have been intorduced to the Western draft".

Put your trust into this kind of showacting and diplomatic paperwork, if you must. I call it a casino gamble.

[Oberon]

Iraq, nuclear reactors?

That's a recipe for success!

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This is true, but the worry is that it may not be true for leaders who have flatly stated that one of their goals is to wipe out the nation of an opposing belief system. Both the United States and the Soviet Union knew that a nuclear war would likely lead to the destruction of everything that we know. The worry is that Iran may not care, or devoutly believe that their God will protect them from the results of such a conflict.

Oh so you worry about religous fanatism.
What do you think about Pakistan ? I remember that India and Pakistan had already engaged in border wars and sometimes they even talked about deploying nuclear weapons. Thats a real escalation, not the North Koreans having 2 tiny bombs with no means to deliver it half way around the world.
Iran is not the world's scapegoat and neither is North Korea.
Demonising them serves absolutely no purpose.

Now if you look at the middle east, yes the Iranians have "talked about wiping Israel", but its just talks. Facts not words are important. And the facts are that over the last 30 years, Iran is one of the only countries to never have attacked Israel. Syria yes. Egypt yes. Gordan yes. Iraq had attacked Iran in one of the bloodiest wars ever seen, Iraq had gased it own citizens, it has attacked and conquered Kuwait. Israel has attacked Iraq, invaded southern Lebanon etc... And considering Israel has a pretty consistent nuclear arsenal if you want a nuclear free region then it is Israel that has to dismantle its arsenal. But you cannot fault Iran for wanting a nuclear arsenal of its own. It just makes perfect sense.

The conspiracy theories accorxding to which once Iran gains nuclear weapons it will give them somehow to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups is just nonsense. If you think this is a possibility than for god's sake you better be scared of the Pakistani situation. But no, worse countries than Iran are allowed to have the bomb, and it is these countries that represent a real danger.

Facts speak for themselves. Words are just rhetoric.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Oh so you worry about religous fanatism.

No need to pick a fight with me. You are getting further from reasoned debate and closer to the shouting stage. I didn't try to pick a fight with you, just address some of your points as I see them. I don't personally worry about religious fanaticism, I just tried to point out why some do.

Some of your arguments are good ones, especially the ones concerning anyone being a dictator to the world.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No need to pick a fight with me. You are getting further from reasoned debate and closer to the shouting stage. I didn't try to pick a fight with you, just address some of your points as I see them. I don't personally worry about religious fanaticism, I just tried to point out why some do.

Some of your arguments are good ones, especially the ones concerning anyone being a dictator to the world.

You got me wrong.
I'm not picking a fight with you, my english is not exactly first grade so maybe the phrase came across the wrong way.
I'm just trying to illustrate why Iran having a nuclear arsenal poses no more problems than India or Pakistan having one.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by goldorak

You got me wrong.
I'm not picking a fight with you, my english is not exactly first grade so maybe the phrase came across the wrong way.
I'm just trying to illustrate why Iran having a nuclear arsenal poses no more problems than India or Pakistan having one.

Except for that silly holacost denying wack job Ahmadinejad.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...ed=0CBMQqwQwAA#

I will feel very secure with nucluear weapons and delievery vehicals in his hands.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Except for that silly holacost denying wack job Ahmadinejad.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...ed=0CBMQqwQwAA#

I will feel very secure with nucluear weapons and delievery vehicals in his hands.

If you really think that a single man (in this case Ahmadinejad) can launch single handly a nuclear strike on Israel or any other country, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Even in the case of the US, the commander in chief alone cannot launch a nuclear strike. The same thing in GB, France, Russia or Cina or every other nation that posses a nuclear arsenal.

[SteamWake]

Comparing US security structure to Iran.... thats rich !

Iraqis aren't green, enviro-hippies. To think this would make the Americans nervous.