Would a Nuclear Iran be so bad?

Nuclear power is a good thing IMHO, but yeah, it would be nice if nuclear weapons didn't exist.

Still, I think the Cold War showed us that the concept of MAD is actually a deterrent for war rather than a stimulus for it.

There was plenty of killing during that period, but it was considerably less than there would have been without MAD.

 

It's promising. Once the nuclear waste problem is solved, it'll be viable - with massive federal subsidies and immunity from prosecutions.

It worked when only the US, the USSR, the UK, France, and China had the naughty bits. Having added India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, the question arises as to when MAD ceases to be practicable. Would MAD be likely to work with 190 nations as it did with 5? At some point, risks increase.

South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine decided they were better off without them. I hope more perceive their self-interests similarly.

 

Perhaps, although the latter of those isn't present in Canada or France. They do both subsidize the nuclear industry, but people are still held accountable for problems linked to their plants.

Overall, air quality tends to be a lot better in both Canada and France than here as a result of favoring nuclear power over coal.

This is true. Canada also forsook nukes, but that's probably because we're essentially their national defense.

Still, I can certainly understand why Iran would want nukes.

 

Would the ability to make a dirty bomb and passed to a terrorist group be so bad?

 

The Canadian Nuclear Liability Act requires nuclear power plant operators to provide only $75 million of liability insurance coverage. Claims beyond $75 million are assessed by a government appointed but independent tribunal, and paid by the tax payer.

I understand that France actually channels liability exclusively to the operator of the nuclear installation.

In addition to receiving massive taxpayer subsidies, in the US, private nuclear reactor developers are guaranteed limited liability for accidents, placing the taxpayer on the hook for a private profit entity yet again.

In any event, licensing new ones makes little economic sense, and the enormous cost incurred by the ones scheduled for decommission are unlikely to cause the public to view them through primrose glasses any time soon:

There is no legitimate reason to interfere with any nation's developing responsible nuclear energy production despite its considerable shortcomings; if the potential for illicit weaponry is a concern, only agreements to permit unfettered inspections can safely prevent it. The current interim arrangement with Iran is well worth pursuing, far preferable to following Netanyahu's demands.



.

 

Ha too funny!! I knew it. You still do not admit that they just want to make a bomb, even though this liberal thread is totally dealing with the fact that this is exactly what they are doing. You are behind the Liberal curve on this one.

 

The only thing that keeps a nation from using nuclear weapons is that they themselves don't want to become a target of nukes. The U.S. used two in WWII because for human reasons, the cost in life on both sides would have been many times greater if an invasion of Japan were to occur, and in pure economic terms, everyone was at the end of their financial ropes by August. Iran has made it clear that they (the Iranian political leaders) do not care, and indeed welcome a full out war so as to bring about the "12th Imam", and any resultant loss to Iranian civilian life would be a wholly acceptable cost. The ends justifies the means for them. The world has never before had a player on the international field ready to play Russian roulette with a revolver loaded with six rounds. Iran, unlike North Korea, has the economic ability to wage war that would totally destroy the middle east, and that is why Saudi Arabia would actually be on the side of the Israelis for this one.

 

Why couldn't every nuclear armed nation just give up their nukes all at once and then have them all destroyed at the same time?

 

Because of people like you...

[video=youtube;2bosouX_d8Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bosouX_d8Y[/video]

Beronce can't even begin to...

 

Of course, some conservatives in Iran still want to make a bomb as has been the case at times in the past, although that is not "just" what they want to do.

That's why the current diplomatic progress that sanctions ongoing inspections is auspicious. Allowing the rightists in Iran to proceed without such scrutiny would be derelict.

The alternative of squandering blood and treasure in a repeat of the Iraqi fiasco on a larger scale would be idiotic, just as getting Syria to admit to and allow destruction of real wmd is far, far preferable to contriving a war about imaginary ones.

Isn't that obvious?



.

 

Fair enough, I didn't actually realize Canada put limits on the liability. That's pretty messed up. It sounds like France doesn't though.

 

Talk more geopolitical sense please! **Ecstasy**. (Though, while getting Syria to admit to its weapons program was indeed crucial, the way it was done was simply unintentional. Until Kerry's slipup, Obama was going to commit IMO a far worse Iraq, and even if/when he turned out right, he didn't act in our national security but in neo-con war hawkish mode. Only a present and existent danger to America is what will enable our armed forces IMO)

 

Syria could well have been a disaster that rivaled the Bush's; whether by canny design or fortuitous happenstance (a suspicion I harbour), it wasn't.So much of success in international relations is dumb luck.

 

That does not even make sense. How do "people like me" prevent every nuclear armed nation in the world from giving up all of their nukes at once and destroying them?

 

What were we talking about again?

 

If Iran goes nuclear then so does Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well. Does anyone really think its a great idea to have a bunch of backwards savages like the Muslims in the Middle East equipped with nukes. Every time they think Allah is offended they will cry out for "The Fire of God" to be rained down on the infidels. Its like having a guy with Parkinson's in charge of carrying around the bottle of nitro-glycerin.

 

Egypt is building nuclear reactors for electricity power generation.

Despite what you may believe about the Arab states; very few of them merge religion into politics.
Also the vast majority of Muslim's aren't that interested in becoming Jihadis but it does capture the eye of the media rather well and this is leading to a flawed perception of Arab's in general.

In Iran's case they require propaganda and scientific achievement in order to keep the state stable.
In fact a CIA nuclear analyst (name escapes me) had stated that the centrifuges were so primitive that they broke during the enrichment process and by his estimation that in order for Iran to produce one bomb they would need around eight years in order to do so.

 

I'm sorry to dig up this aging thread but I haven't been active enough on this website to respond in a proper timing, but I have to address this mindset. Serfin', you are not the only the one that can sympathize with Iran wanting nuclear weapons. Many people do.

However, the relevant question is; if you can put yourself in their shoes for wanting a nuclear arsenal, then you can answer the question: would you be open to the international community about obtaining such weapons knowing the greater risks of sanctions or military attack or would you lie and try and keep your nuclear ambitions a secret?

 

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a disaster for two reasons:
1) It would force Saudi arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, possibly in conjunction with Egypt, creating a very volatile situation and leading to ever greater risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.
2) It could very easily give Iran a false sense of invulnerability, encouraging radical elements in Iran to become more adventurous and - for example - taking the brakes of Hezbollah and allowing it to use a greater variety of conventional and unconvential weapons against Israel. This might lead to a confrontation in which the use of such weapons might cause unacceptable casualties in Israel forcing Israel to demonstrate the effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent, for example by launching a nuclear attack on Iran. Not really a comforting scenario.

 

Iran has no possible reason to nuke anyone. Maybe Israel if they went full retard and wanted their country to be turned to glass.

Non-proliferation is gun control among governments rather than individuals.

[hr][/hr]

Who cares anyway. Millions of deaths, trillions in property damage - that (*)(*)(*)(*) is inconsequential. People die all the time.

Plus, radiation is cool as (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Maybe you've heard of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

 

I would definitely keep them secret, although ironically, if we stopped putting pressure on them, they would likely be more open about it.

I'd rather them be open about it, so that it is easier to observe them from afar.