I'm curious...does anyone here think there is any reasonable way to stop Iran from going nuclear? If so, what do you think can be done? While it's not necessarily the biggest problem the international community faces, it seems to me to be one of the most unsolvable problems. I've been an advocate of American and European nations giving support to the pro-democracy movements within Iran, in an attempt to destabilize the government, but those efforts don't seem to be working. Force is obviously not a sane option, as American troops are already bogged down in one quagmire and certainly don't need another. At this point, I really don't think there's any way to stop Iran from acquiring nukes...a scary idea, but one I think the world will have to get used to.
How bout we goes to them and say: "Hey, if i ever, ever, catch you using nuclear arms i will bomb every last square inch of this country, then when that's done i'd bomb the ashes and let your neighbors feast on your rotting carcass of a country. ta" IMHO we don't use our ability to whipe any country off the earth soddom and gemorrah style effectively in diplomocacy.
The US helped to arm Iran in the first place, as they have all of the "terrorist nations" we are now up against in the never-ending quest for global control, which is the so-called "war on terror." I do not buy any of this neocon-concocted BS I am hearing about Iran. I am sure it will turn out just like Iraq. The dominant media will begin to bombard the sheeple with incessant hype and propaganda, stiring up this fear that "something must be done about Iran." I have a strong feeling we are going to be hearing more and more about Iran over the next 6-12 months. The fact is, the neocons are salivating over Iran right now. They have been for a long time; much longer than we've been hearing about it. And they will justify an invasion of Iran (as they did Iraq) no matter how tedious it might be for them. Anything is possible when you have people like Cheney and Rumsfeld in power. These people are ruthless. You really have to wonder... we have bit off more than we can chew in Iraq, now these people are talking about going into Iran, Syria and North Korea. We are talking about literally ENDLESS WAR. It will be war that will not end in our lifetime. Considering the current shortage of troops (which isn't going to get better anytime soon), as well as the neocons' relentless determination, you really have to wonder how they are going to acquire the troops needed for these endless pre-emptive wars they are hell-bent on waging.
NEOCON PROPAGANDA regarding Iran: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040224.htm http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040720.htm
I am no more scared about Iran having nukes than our own nation possessing them. Why is it that only some nations are allowed to have them? Who's to day some crooked american doesn't sell OUR nukes or the technology to build them to the black market? The endless war is right as pressed_rat suggests. You know nostrodomis predicted around the turn of this millenium or horrific war lasting 17 years followed by 1000 years of peace. I hope the man was right. Not that I put any faith in such foley, but one can hope and dream.
Because some nations have proven that they are able to be responsible with them. I don't have any problem with the US, UK, France, or China having nukes. I'm only a little discomforted by Russia having them. I have a big problem with unstable, irresponsible countries like Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran having nuclear weapons. Maybe in a perfect world, all nations would be equally responsible with them. But the truth is that the superpowers are just more capable of controlling them than these nations that have foreign policies based on the complete annihilation of their enemies. The United States has an unimaginable amount of safeguards on our nuclear weapons...probably moreso than anyone else in the world. Nuclear proliferation originating in the United States is not a big threat.
So you feel that Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved our responsibility with nukes? How about the countless tests done by the US and France over the years that have completely altered the ecosytems where they were conducted forever? Just this summer 2 'rods' of spent nuclear fuel that could easily be converted into dirty bombs have turned up missing from the inventory at a power plant in the state I live in and have yet to be found. Safeguards or not - anybody can be bought. I understand the danger posed by nations such as N.Korea, Iran etc developing nuclear weapons, but to assume that the United States' possesion of nuclear weapons is not a threat to 'World' safety is blind optimism.
The US has proved "responsible" with weapons, and Russia's sheer incompetence in storing TONS of nuclear material is only "a little" discomforting? Uh, ok. So, the only country to EVER use the worst weaponry on the planet, slaughtering about 200,000 innocent human beings says "responsible" to some people, I suppose. As does the US policy of throwing around some of the worst chemical weapons ever created like firecrackers, or dropping daisy cutters on villages, or refusing to stop littering the world with thousands of landmines. Not to mention its assistance in arming Israel with nukes - or helping Iraq develop horrific chemical weapons... Yes, the US has certainly proven its responsibility with weapons. Of course, the countries listed as terribly "irresponsible" are also the countries who haven't used these weapons - INCLUDING Iran, India, Pakistan, China, etc. What they DO have in common, however, is that they are comprised of dark-skinned "savages." And you KNOW you can't trust any of them with technology. But good old civilized white folks have certainly gained the trust of the planet. Nope, no history of committing horrific acts there - no genocide, no slavery, no atomic terror. *yawn* You know, I personally hope Iran DOES have nukes, for the sake of the innocent women and children who will be bombed to hell eventually in the US/British quest for control of every natural resource on this planet. Nukes are the only thing that MIGHT buy them a little protection - and god bless 'em if they can get 'em fast enough to save themselves.
The fact that there have only ever been two nuclear attacks in world history indicates that, yes, we are fairly responsible with the weapons. The United States has not attacked any country with nuclear weapons in 60 years. You are equivocating. While US foreign policy is often misguided, we are responsible with our nukes. The US didn't give Iraq or anyone else nuclear weapons, and gave Israel only inadvertant support for nuclear programs (in fact, all recent US administrations have actively DISCOURAGED Israel from going nuclear, for fear that the Arab world would do the same). You conveniently left Israel off the list of countries I mentioned as irresponsible, because it wouldn't have fit your point to do so. And Iran is made up of "dark-skinned savages"? Maybe if you would leave your parent's basement and actually learn a little about the world, you'd realize that Iranians are just as white as Europeans. Idiot. Why is it that you think that only white people in suits-and-ties are capable of harming the world? Furthermore, why do you think that anyone who is the same skin color as such people has no business talking to the rest of the world? You're either a racist or a PC idiot. Or both. Actually, even neocons are divided on how to handle Iran, and pretty much everyone else is against invasion. The US simply does not have the resources or political capital to do so. It won't happen. And shame on you for implying that the Iranian people (or the world) would be better off if the Iranian government had nukes. As of now, there's a huge effort in Iran for democratization and liberalization. The acquisition of nukes would effectively squelch that movement, and relegate Iran to at least several more decades of theocracy.
No, but the fact that there hasn't been a nuclear attack since then does. I think the United States (and the world) saw the effects of nuclear devastation after World War II. I don't think the American people would EVER support the use of nuclear weapons in a war unless we were nuked first (and maybe not even then). That's an environmental issue, irrelevant to nuclear security. Interesting. If you don't mind my asking, what power plant was it? Do you know of any stories online where I can read up on it? I disagree. I don't think most people would give away nuclear secrets for cash...but anyway, you'd have to buy a whole lot of people to gain access to America's nuclear secrets. It'd be very difficult for a single individual to compromise our nuclear security. I'm not saying that there's no threat at all. The threat of nuclear war is very real...but of the countries with nuke capability, the United States would be near the bottom of the list of countries likely to start a nuclear war (probably just above France and Britain), and definitely dead-last in nuclear proliferation.
