Is Iran's nuclear program really "peaceful"?

Post Reply New Topic

Who in here actually thinks Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, or is it being used to make weapons?

About as peaceful as the US nuclear programme, after all the US is the only country to use nukes on people.

Wether it's peaceful or not they have just as much right as any other country to nukes.

They have already threatened to nuke Israel according to one news article I read. The U.S does not use nukes to win wars in exception for once.

The one time it was used aggressions were made against the U.S in the homeland. IT was entirely warranted to end the war, the results unfortunate for civilians. Why have hundreds of thousands of soldiers die in an all out invasion for something we did not entice..

Since this there has been great responsibility in how it is used, despite the unfortunate reality of such technologies existing.

Iran should not be allowed to obtain the technology for the stability of the region, the leadership is entirely mad.


If unstable countries want nuclear technology, there should be a contracted facilitation and paid force to safe guard such facilities, otherwise not allowed if deemed unsafe. Such technologies can bring economic instability and uncertainty; such technologies used by foolish madmen could hinder the world economy and needlessly destroy millions of innocent lives.

No country has the right to have nuclear weapons or technologies if deemed not worthy. Just how it is for you and I and just everyone’s future in this small world.

I don't know.
But as they have acctually threathened another country with nuclear war, I would say, no, it's not peaceful.
Better safe than sorry.

I haven't heard of any credible evidence to indicate they are enriching beyond the point needed for nuclear power. Based on past experience I have to discount any accusations from the governments of the US, UK, or Australia.

Can't take the risk, should not take the risk... Evidence or not if it is capable then the facility should be shut down unless entirely supervised by the U.N.

It's like saying someone has the right to have a loaded unliscensed shotgun to your head, make threats but it's not against the law. Iran is lead by insain people who should not be allowed to even handle such materials.

In this day and age, it's not worth the risk.

Is Iran's supposed nuclear proliferation peaceful? I'd have to say no, given that the policies pushed by any nation state have little to do with peace. Nation states want power and control. They don't want peace.

The following link should help in clearing much confusion regarding the Iran deal:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... emID=10249

Well from a military perspective why not build nuclear weapons? Americain/British occupied Afghanistan in the east and "currently on the good side of the yanks despite doing EXACTLY the same thing" Pakisatan with nuclear weapons and west is Iraq Occupied by British/Yank forces It kinda justifies their position even more.

What this basically comes down too is we dont want them giving a terrorist organisation a nuclear bomb. But since we let Pakistan and North Korea, Libya (which gave thme up) India and co have nukes it makes bugger all differance really as the terrorist cells could get nuclear weapons from these countries or the former soviet union which has a ridiculous amount of stockpile that has "gone missing"

So really what is this about? Grinding it down to the basics here we just don't like these people in the middle east to have any power and haven't really allowed them to have any since the collapse of the ottomon empire.

Uranium for a reactor only needs to be enriched to about 3% 235 Uranium.

Weapons Grade Uranium needs to be enriched to about 93.5% 235 Uranium.

And the bomb dropped on Hiroshima required 60kg of Weapons Grade Uranium, which took considerable industrial power to produce. In fact the Manhattan project cost about $20 Billion.

When Niels Bohr saw the US effort to produce the atomic bomb he apparently said:
“You see, I told you it couldn’t be done without turning the entire country into a factory. You have done just that.”

So in short if Iran was going to try and build a bomb, it would be very noticeable.

... Dirty bombs are very bad....

Just re-read your post and noticed that comment...

The nukes were not required to end the war. Not only was the bomb on Nagasaki ordered before the Hiroshima bomb had actually dropped (i.e. giving the Japanese no chance to offer a surrender)

But furthermore no nukes were needed at all, the Japanese would have consented to a surrender, as long as it included the condition that their Emperor (whom they viewed as a God) was not punished. President Truman was well aware of this (since Ex-President Hoover, among other people, informed him) but still demanded an unconditional surrender in the Potsdam Proclamation, which incidentally sounded threatening to the Emperor and was therefore unlikely to be accepted.

And finally even if the US were for some reason entirely bent on complete annihilation of the Japanese, they didn't need the nukes.

A land invasion would not have cost all that many US lives, taking for example that when the US took the Marinas chain of islands, they fought the Japanese out of an entrenched position, and yet only took 5'000 casualties, compared to the 42'000 defenders.

And finally the US could have just out waited Japan anyway. Japan had no navy, no air force (US recon flights flew unescorted), even its electricity was being rationed. There was blockades of all major ports and Japan had initially invaded Manchuria in 1931 to try and make its food supply more secure. So before Hiroshima was bombed, the heavily rationed people were foraging outside of the city for food.

“Disease & starvation were the biggest killers – not Allied fire power”
(Hell in the Pacific by Jonathan Lewis & Ben Steele)

Japan’s effective combat life-time could be measured in weeks or less. So the US, who had just added to their fleet an ice-cream ship “that could turn out 5’100 gallons of ice cream an hour.”, could have just waited.

The bomb was not necessary, it was dropped largely to try to scare the USSR.

Sorry for the rant… I just don’t like the widely held belief that the US was at all justified.

It's why I do not like the technology existing anyways. I have read about that time in history and recall thinking about the devistation, the long lasting effects. The military is not concerning, just to mention angent orange and also tests on soldiers.

I think this world will be a much better place when man does not make hidden things into fact of realities or great beings into non-existinal falicies.

When rational and logical thinkers subside conflict and work for what is best for the world, instead of conflict, premptive, agressionaly or protectively. When there will be no need for a cost of any war, aside from the increased value of a single life and humanity as a whole.

With such technologies and other devistating weapons of war existing and even part of the human existence at all, it is just one counter-build-up to the others aggressions. From possiblities to the actual circumstances of what comes from the certaintity of the intents and the ultimate allowance of it coming into being if not prevented.

Did people actually know that the bombs were that big? Could they have not made them much smaller?

I dont think Japan would have give up, for them to like a cult of the collective mass believe one man to be a living god. Next it would have been the imagined man that was god handing out the spiked punch.

Hitler believed God was on his side, was that really Japan?

Japan is not the same as it was then, nor is germany but both were defeated and the threat to the world removed.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/i ... ations.pdf

http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... operations

Greenpeace is commonly not realistic, yet some of it is ideal.

The problem though is, if such technology exists and is a tool of gaining power, which is more ego. There will be no de-escalations of the tools of war because of fear, power and control, greed and the reality of threat.

Green peace I do not wish to trash yet liberal extremisms can be unrealistic. The ideal future is without such weapons, pollution and wrong doings.

Nuclear exists, Iran should not be enabled by the international community to obtain the weapons or be able to create dirty bombs. Saying it is hating those people, not wanting them to have power is using false claims of discrimination as a way of enabling fanatics.

There people need more freedom, with more freedom comes economic opportunity, not switch baiters that say they want to nuke Israel, then say it is for peace, it is called a false peace and would be ignorant to ignore or try to manipulate by saying the leadership is stable and is just discrimination.

Blarney

i have a tendency to agree with you about certain aspects of greenpeace. however, if you view the first link, which contains the quote that i cited, you will see that it actually comes from a an official US document published in 1995, which was apparently withdrawn from public availability and which greenpeace have been kind enough to publish for us.

No matter what the article contains, if it is not fake itself or an error that was retracted after political policy changes. There is still the reality of counter measure build up, tactums are used.

Just imagine germany WWII having nukes.

After reading that, then appreciating the differences between the U.S governmental and miltary mentality perogrative and that of Hitlers. The U.S is just more responsible and a world leader..