Iranians unite over nuclear row

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281849.stm

Keep it short and provide the link.
Thanks.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...iranmovingmethodicallytowardnuclearcapability

Bottom line... they will get the bomb and no one can stop them (provided they dont already have it... remember the three bombs from russia that were traced to the Iranian border? yeah how come no one wants to mention that?

 

We wouldn't be nearly as concerned about a real democracy getting these weapons.

 

True, they are not ready for a democracy, just like Iraq. It takes time, you cant force democracy upon ppl.

 

Yes you would. It's not about fairness, it's about power. For example, if Ireland wanted to produce nukes, I bet the nuclear powers, especially UK, wouldn't be pleased, and would claim something to avoid it. It's a hypocrat system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3758362.stm

 

I think we should attack brazil before it's too late.

First steps should be sanctions, for example forcibly naturalizing brazilian players abroad.

Italy will get Adriano and Kakà.

 

lol

 

makes perfectly sense, only Germany isn't a nuclear power and has as an effort as the US, UK and France (while Pakistan, India, China and Russia don't care... Israel's for sure on the other edge of the table...)

 

Yes, they would. But a real democracy also has little reason to develop nuclear weapons. Why would Ireland bother?
That's my point. Israel is the only democracy in the world that actively worked on getting nuclear weapons in the last 35 years. (That didn't already have them.) They, however, have serious reasons for doing it - Ireland wouldn't. Nor does Iran - who's going to attack them. The desire for nuclear weapons is the power aspect. Its a bit of a circular argument, of course, but the desire to acquire nukes is usually a suggestion that you least need them in the modern age.

 

Israel developed nukes more than 35 years ago.

 

Say what?

 

Its democracy, not a Mc donalds that you can just open up shop with a welcome sign on!
You have to have the capacity to understand how it works and how it is to be done. Iran has had a Monarchy for 2500 years before the Mullacracy took over. You cant have them accept democracy just because it worked for the west.

Besides it seems that the majority of the population are united on having 'nucular' technology, what makes you think that had they had a democracy, they would vote against it?

Iran would go nuclear no matter how the government was run, democracy or not.

 

I wasn't addressing our role in this matter, just your comparison between Iran and Iraq. I have little doubt Iran will be a prosperous democracy in the not so distant future. It's the next few decades I'm worried about.

 

Fair enough. Lets say 50 years then.

 

They're united because they see the "West" as a threat. If they didn't, they wouldn't have the need for nukes.

No proof of that. I could insert Germany into your sentence and it would make as much sense.

 

Look at how the US has dealt with Iraq and how they confront all the regimes that arent 'friendly' Ofcourse the US is a threat! and a domocracy would make Iran more friendly? there is no proof of that. The people dont like the US, a democracy would only make them more vocal.

Germany isnt Iran.

 

True. Sorry, I misunderstood

 

Even if relations thaw after a hypothetical democracy sets in, Iran would still pursue the Nuclear issue. Nothing is set in stone in the international front, threats are bound to "pop-up" somewhere along the line, and it is irresponsible for the present government or future Iranian government to leave a country surrounded by possible threats comparitively defenseless. Iranians see nuclear weapons as a powerful defensive deterrent. Iranians are keenly aware that countries who have a safety net to fall back on can't be pushed around (to the detrement of their people) when it comes to formulating an approach to international political alignments and international markets (an approach with the best interests of Iranians on radar). The US should fear a democratic Iran more than a theocratic Iran, not because Iranians have any statistically significant animosity towards Americans (the exact opposite is true), but because they consider themselves a future power.

 

I can't tell whether U're Bing facetious or not.

Iran was ready for democracy in the early 50s, albeit a nascent one. Of course the U.S. and the British put the snuff out of that. Of all the Middle Eastern countries, Iran is about as ready for democracy as any other...if not substantially more than most. The Mullahs know this in their h-Arts...and in their Qur'an. We shall C.

Love live Mossadegh!!!

 

hmmm
Some one got it.

Yet I do have my doubtful days.

 

That is the real motive behind US focusing on Iran the rest is some countries and organizations (UN) really fearing an uncontroled nuclear proliferation, another who just want to keep their unrivaled power in the zone and then a bunch of useless vasals and vavasors.

 

What about India?

 

How many time do you think Germany (or Italy) needs to develop nuclear weapons if they really want?

 

depends on how much the US, UK, france, Russia and China would help us and how much money would be put into it, but I'd say a year maybe?

Germany 8and Italy as well) are not trying to get nuclear weapons, because their allies have them (Us, UK and France) and at least here in germany we suffered so bad from bombings in WW2 and have such a strong green party(and all the ppl behind it) that nuclear power at the one hand and nuclear weapon s at the other hand are just something the majority of the german public does not want germany to have. And we signed treaties after WW2 and glasnost that we wouldn't develop those weapons, and other than other countries we stick to that kind of treaty (same with italy I assume).

As for Israel, officialy they don't have nuclear weapons but it#s an open secret they do and it is obvious that the US helped a lot... those weaponry makes an arabic attack against israel even more suicidal, so there is a kind of balance of power in that region (not looking at palestine), which would be destroyed when Iran would build some, so Israel would attack (with their nukes propably) , no doubt.
I think that's why the 'big 4' want Iran not to build nukes, because Israel is out of control.
and what the heck does Iran need nukes for, either democratic, islamistic or autocratic?
if it would be a democracy they might be allied with Russia or the US (or Israel? look at turkey) so there wouldn't be a need for nukes. Why risking international prestige and sympathie - not to mention the costs of nuclear programs, heck that killed the USSR - for that?

At the other hand the US attack at Iraq, which didn't have nuclear warfare, and the 'let N-Korea alone' policy sends a clear massage to the mullahs that they need WoMD in order to be sort of respected from the US.

about nuke history:
1945 first 3 bombs by US
1949 first successfull test Russia
1952 UK
1960 France
1964 China

1974 India
1998 Pakistan
1967 Israel, but not officially

Kazachstan (or however that country is spelled in english), Belarus and the Ukraine had some weapons after the cold war but gave them to Russia.
Argentina, Brazil, Iraq, Libya, Switzerland and South Africa propably tried to get some but gave up.
North korea and Iran might have one atm, deny that puplicly though...

source: wikipedia.de